
V53; 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDDlDl'^fi?!'^ 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/paymentofclaimsi01unit 



63d Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( Report 

M Session. \ 1 No. 97. 



PAYMENT OF CLAIMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FINDINGS OF THE 
COURT OF CLAIMS, REPORTED UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER 
ACTS, AND SECTION NO. 151 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE. 



Decembek 3, 1913. — Committed to tlie Committee of the Whole House and 

ordered to be printed. 



Mr. Gregg, from the Committee on War Claims, submitted the 

following 

REPOET. 

[To accompany H. R. 8846.] 

The Committee on War Claims, to whom was refeiTed the bill 
(H. R. 8846) making appropriation for payment of certain claims 
in accordance with the findings of the Court of Claims, reported 
under the provisions of the acts approved March 3, 1883, and March 
3, 1887, commonly known, respectively, as the Bowman Act and the 
Tucker Act, and also under the provisions of section No. 151 of the 
act approved March 3, 1911, commonly known as the Judicial Code, 
submit the following report: 

The committee recommend the passage of the bill, with certain 
amendments stated in detail at the end of the report, which amend- 
ments are for the purpose of adding a few claims to those included 
in the bill as introduced. 

This bill, as indicated by its title, has for its purpose the making 
of the appropriation necessary to pay various claims which have 
been referred to the Court of Claims by various preceding Con- 
gresses, under the provisions of the Bowman and Tucker Acts, and 
also under section 151 of the Judicial Code. All the claims included 
in this bill have been tried by the Court of Claims and have been re- 
ported back to Congress by the court for final action. 
4 The various acts under w^hich these claims have been judicially 
tried are hereinafter set forth. 

Owing to the fact that the last act making appropriation for pay- 
ment of claims of the classes included in this bill was that approved 
February 24, 1905 (33 Stats., 743), the present bill represents the 
accumulation of claims reported by the Court of Claims under these 
acts for over eight years. 



ru53s 

2 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

The amount carried by this bill is $1,729,012.11, and the number 
of claims included is 1,158. 

As has been previously stated by this committee, proper legisla- 
tive regard for the decisions and findings of the Court of Claims 
would obviously result in appropriations being made for payment of 
the just claims reported by the court at every session of Congress; but 
that has not been done, and the result of congressional inaction is 
that the present Congress is confronted by a large number of ad- 
judicated claims, some of which have been awaiting appropriation 
for eight and nine years, owing to the fact that even the appro- 
priation act of February 24. 1905, was not brought down to date, but 
left pending a number of claims previously reported by the Court of 
Claims. 

All the claims included in this present bill have been previously 
passed by the House, save 07 claims, all of which, save 15, were tried 
by the court at a recent date and too late for consideration in con- 
nection with the various bills of similar character which have from 
time to time passed one or the other of the two Houses of Congress. 
The greater number of these claims covered by the present bill have 
previously passed both Houses several times, but in bills which 
failed to become laws. 

H. E. 15372, Sixtieth Congress, passed the House, was amended in 
the Senate, and failed to become a law. In the Sixty-first Congress 
S. 7971 was passed by the Senate, covering many of these claims, but 
failed to pass the House, which pa&sed instead H. R. 32767, cover- 
ing only war claims, and which bill failed to pass the Senate, al- 
though the two bills were almost identical so far as concerned war 
claims. In the Sixty-second Congress H. R. 19115 was passed by the 
House, and as passed contained all the claims embraced in the present 
bill save the small number mentioned, which were not before the 
House in time for inclusion in that bill. That bill, H. R. 19115, was 
passed by the Senate, but with numerous amendments, and the con- 
ferees were unable to agree upon any final report. 

It is thus seen that in each of the three preceding Congresses a bill 
for payment of war claims allowed by the Court of Claims has passed 
each House of Congress, but the two Houses never agreed on any one 
bill. The present bill is presented in the hope that it may meet favor- 
able consideration and become a law. 

PBEVIOUS APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER 

ACTS. 

The first general appropriation for payment of findings of the 
Court of Claims under these acts was made in the Fifty-first Con- 
gress. Prior to that time various individual appropriations had been 
made for payment of Bowman Act findings, aggregating $128,158.73. 

The total of appropriations heretofore made to pay claims allowed 
under these acts is as follows : 

Prior to Fifty-first Congress $128,138.73 

Fifty-first Congress (act Mar. 3, 1891; 26 Stat, 1445) 573,763.30 

Fifty-fiftli Congress (act Mar. 3, 1899; 30 Stat, 1161) 1,722.65,5.79 

Fifty-seventh Congress (act May 27. 1902; 32 Stat, 207) 444. 503. 10 

Fifty-eiglitli Congress (act Feb. 24, 1906; 33 Stat, 743) 1,197,272.60 

Sixtietli Congress (individual act) 3,390.00 

Total 4, 069, 723. 52 

D. OJ n, 



°^ 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 
CLASSES OF CLAIMS. 



The claims covered by this bill may be divided, generally, into three 
different classes, as follows: 

1. Claims of volunteer officers of the Union Army during the 
Civil War for the difference between the pay they actually received 
and that which they would have received had they been mustered into 
the service in the rank of the position which they really filled; also 
included are claims of Union soldiers or officers of various kinds, 
each depending upon special circumstances, and several claims arising 
from service during the War with Spain. The total carried for these 
former officers and soldiers is $51,240.49 in 163 claims. 

2. Claims of churches, Masonic and Odd Fellows lodges, schools, 
hospitals, and a few county or municipal corporations not at seat of 
war for use and occupation of their premises, with incidental dam- 
ages thereto, and also, in several instances, for buildings torn down 
and used for military purposes, such as construction of quarters, etc. 
There are 370 claims of this general class, aggregating $486,403.29. 

3. Claims of individuals for Army stores or supplies found by the 
Court of Claims to have been taken under proper authority for Army 
use, and including some claims for rent of buildings used for military 
purposes at Federal Army posts during the Civil War. There are 
625 of these claims, aggregating $1,191,368.33. 

Attention is called to the fact that no claims for property burned 
or destroyed are included in this bill, and claims of this class were 
not considered, and such claims are not to be prejudiced because of 
their not being included herein. They will be taken up for consider- 
ation hereafter. 

ANALYSIS OF BILL BY CLASSES OF CLAIMS AND BY STATES. 

In the preparation of this bill every claim has been scrutinized; 
and if included in the bill, it received that favorable consideration 
solely because the facts reported by the Court of Claims showed it 
to be a claim possessing merit. 

Naturally, however, the greater number of the claims of Federal 
officers come from Northern States, which furnished the majority of 
the Union troops. Naturally, also, the greater number of the other 
claimants are from Southern States, where the operations of the 
Union Army were principally conducted during the war. 

It is deemed proper, however, to inform the House just how the 
proposed appropriation will be distributed, both as to classes of 
claims and according to the States, and following is a tabulated 
statement conveying this information. 

As explanatory of the table which follows, it is proper to state that 
it is prepared, as is the bill, from the findings of the Court of Claims. 
Many of the claims are represented by administrators or executors, 
and of course it is impossible for the committee to know how Avidely 
the sums appropriated may be ultimately distributed among heirs 
or next of kin, who are doubtless more scattered than the findings 
of the Court of Claims would show. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 



States. 


Ofllcers and 
soldiers. 


Churches, lodges, 
colleges, hospi- 
tals, cttuntios, 
etc.i 


Individual claims, 
stores and sup- 
plies, etc. 


Total amount and 
number of claims 

for each State. 




Num- 
ber. 


Amount. 


Num- 
ber. 


Amount. 


Num- 
ber. 


Amount. 


Num- 
ber. 


Amount. 


1 . Alabama 






18 
9 


$34,374.00 
10,515.00 


41 

36 

1 
1 


$49, 289. 66 

60.213.67 

4W.00 

675.00 


59 

45 

6 

5 

3 

t 
44 
20 
20 
13 
11 
112 
67 
3 

47 

5 

13 

4 

63 

70 

1 

2 

1 

1 

5 

4 

11 

26 

1 

9 

2 

1 

■? 

13 

1 

200 

3 

1 

172 

1 

65 

3 


$8;5,663.66 








70,728.67 


3. California 


5 
4 
3 
3 

1 


$1,842.69 
925.62 
412. 19 


2,322.69 








1.600.62 


a. Connecticut 






412. 19 


6. District of Columbia.. 


6;J6.22 
lOii. 21 






3 
3 
31 
4 
1 


6,015.00 
7, 710. 00 
30.508.00 
7. 082. 00 
1.200.00 


6,651.22 


7. P'lorida 


1 
13 


i.iio.oo 

10,305.00 


8, 986. 21 




40,813.00 
11,729.90 


9. Illinois 


16 
19 
13 
8 
16 


4, 647. 90 
4. 827. 80 
3.569.54 
1,463.61 
4.131.15 


10. Indiana 






6,027.80 


11. Iowa 






3,569.54 








3 
52 
65 


1,634.00 
5:5,498.00 
209, 683. 82 


3,097.61 


13. Kentucky 


44 
2 


33,675.00 
21,700.00 


91,304.15 




291.38:5.82 


15. Maine 


3 


1.074.26 


1,074.26 




15 


7.028.:J3 


32 

1 

1 

1 

58 

43 


:53. 109. 19 

5, 5:58. 00 

3. 040. 00 

200. 00 

110,574.90 

62, 760. 00 


40, 137. 52 


17. Mass.iclinsetts 


4 

12 
3 


2,328.72 

2, 542. 8:5 

556. 10 


7,866.72 


IS. Micliii-Mn 






5.582.83 


19. Minnesota 






756. 10 




5 
19 


5,323.00 
39,389.75 


115,897.90 


21. Missouri 

22. Montana 


,H 
1 
2 
1 
1 


4, 173. .54 

53. 23 

554.07 

40. 33 

20.39 


106,323.29 
53.23 


23. Nebraska 






1 


554.07 


24. New Hampshire 








40.33 


25. New Jersey 










20.39 


26. Nevada 






5 
3 
1 
16 


9,706.00 
5,505.00 
9,562.34 
17,367.00 


9, 706. 00 




1 
10 


632. IS 
3,390.92 






6, 137. 18 


28. New York 






12, 953. 26 


29. North ( 'arolina 


10 


10,986.00 


28,353.00 


30. North Dakota 


1 
8 
2 
1 
6 
1 


260.35 
3,120.21 

626. 48 

417.31 
1,388.81 

701.26 


260.35 


31. Ohio 


1 


175.00 






.3,295.21 
626. 48 


32. Oklahoma 






33. Oregon 










417.31 


34. Pennsvlvania 

35. Rhode Island 


4 


660.00 


3 


3,471.00 


5,519.81 
701.26 


36. South Carolina 


9 


17,773.33 


4 


19,160.66 


36,933.33 
391.31 


37. South Dakota 


1 
2 


391.31 
226. 59 


38. Tennessee 

39. Texas 


60 


138,976.88 


138 
3 


290,696.50 
3,190.00 


429,899.97 
3,190.00 


40. Vermont 


1 
2 

1 


124.06 

5,277.64 

115.41 






124. 06 


41. Virginia 


123 


118,401.00 


47 


111,038.75 


234,717.39 
115.41 


42. Washington 


43. West Virginia 


37 


35,951.00 


28 


18,460.50 


54,411.50 


44. Wisconsin 


3 


661.56 


661.56 














Total 


163 


51,240.49 


370 


486,403.29 


625 


1,191,368.33 


1,158 


1,729,012.11 







• While generally classed as church claims, this class includes several claims of counties and municipal 
organizations not at seat of war. 



MANNER IN WHICH CLAIMS WERE REFERRED TO THE COURT OF 

CLAIMS. 

While a brief history of the legislation pertinent to the subject 
of these claims will be given later in this report, a few words as to 
the manner in which these claims were sent to the court may not be 
improper. 

By the Bowman Act, approved March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 485), it 
was provided that any committee of either House of Congress having 
pending before it any claim Avhich is not barred from consideration 
by any law of the United States might refer such claim to the Court 
of Claims for judicial ascertainment of all material facts. 

It would appear that the Committee on War Claims is the com- 
mittee which has most availed itself of this means of learning the 
facts of claims. All of the findings which have been considered in 
connection with this bill in claims sent to the court under the Bow- 



CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 5 

man Act show the reference to have been made by this committee. 
None of the Bowman Act references covering any of these claims 
now considered was made by any other committee. 

The very fact that the Court of Claims has tried a claim under the 
Bowman Act shows, in law, that the claim was not barred, either by 
failure to duly present it or by the inherent nature of the claim itself. 
In its practical application to war claims it means, generally speak- 
ing, that the claim in question Avas previously presented to some 
officer or tribunal having jurisdiction to entertain it; otherwise, \mder 
the terms of the act, the court would itself have no jurisdiction to 
entertain it. 

Man}' of the claims involved were referred to the Court of Claims 
under the provisions of section 14 of the act of March 8, 1887 (24 
Stat., 505), commonly called the Tucker Act. 

In every such claim a bill for the relief of the claimant has been 
introduced in one of the Houses of Congress. Such bill has been 
x'onsidered by the appropriate committee, and as the result of that 
<'onsideration a formal resolution has been adopted by the House 
wherein the bill was pending referring the pending bill to the court 
for proceedings similar to those directed by the Bowman Act. 

The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims mider the Tucker Act 
was much broader than under the Bowman Act, as imder the Tucker 
Act any bill providing for payment of a claim, except a pension, 
might be referred to the court. The Tucker Act therefore operated 
to open the door of that court to many claims of which no jurisdiction 
i-ould be taken by the court under the Bowman Act, such, for in- 
stance, as claims for rent of real estate at seat of war; for supplies 
taken from possession of the heirs of an undivided estate, even 
though there was an administrator whose loyalty could not be estab- 
lished; and claims of classes which might have been previously pre- 
sented to the Southern Claims Commission or Quartermaster Gen- 
eral or Commissary General, and which had become barred for 
failure to so present them. The wide distinction between the juris- 
liiction of the court under these two acts is treated and very lucidly 
explained in the case of Dowdy, 26 Court of Claims, 220, decided 
shortly after proceedings were begun before the court under the 
Tucker Act. It is true that in case of Brandon, administrator, 46 
Court of Claims, 559, the court declined to take jurisdiction under 
a Tucker Act reference of a claim which might have been presented 
under the abandoned and captured property act, the claim being for 
cotton alleged to have been seized and sold and proceeds covered 
into the Treasury. That decision was by a divided court, hoAvever 
(see dissenting opinion of Justice Howry, 47 C. Cls., 403), and it is 
noted that the reason for the conclusion there announced seems to be 
largely that there is danger of "conflicting claims"' to the same 
cotton or proceeds, which could not be adjusted under a reference of 
only one of such possible claims, and of the enactment of section 162 
of the Judicial Code, opening the court to such claiuis only where 
the seizure occurred after June 1, 1865, which is held by the court to 
negative the idea that Congress intended claims arising prior to that 
elate might be adjudicated or considered. 

By the act entitled "An act to codify, revise, and amend the laws 
relating to the judiciary." approved March 3, 1911, and commonly 



6 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

called the Judioial Code, the Bowinan and Tucker Acts were re- 
pealed, and section 151 of that code Avas substituted for the previous 
acts; that section l.")l of the code is practically a reenactment of 
section l-t of the Tucker Act, above mentioned, with the amendment 
made thereto by act of June 25, 1910. 

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

The reference of a claim or bill to the Court of Claims under the 
Bowman or Tucker Acts, or under section 151 of the Judicial Code, 
means merely that the claimant has conferred upon him the privilege 
of presenting his claim to the court for a judicial determination of 
the facts. 

A sworn petition mu.st be filed, under the rules of that court. Some 
claims, like those of former officers of the Union Army, above men- 
tioned, may doubtless be established in a large measure by record 
evidence, and without the production of parol evidence to any great 
extent. 

In the ordinary war claim, however, for Army stores or supplies, 
or arising from occupation of real estate, witnesses are examined, as 
in chancery practice. Depositions are taken in behalf of claimant, 
and his witnesses are subjected to cross-examination by counsel rep- 
resenting the Government, detailed in most instances from the De- 
partment of Justice. Lawyers in the service of the Department of 
Justice also make independent investigations of claims, and if any 
facts are fomid unfavorable to the claim witnesses are called for the 
(Tovernment and are examined in the same manner as witnesses for 
claimants. 

After the taking of testimony briefs are prepared by counsel for 
claimant and also by counsel for the United States. Many cases 
are argued orally before the court. An active de:^ense is made in 
every case by counsel representing the Government, so that the proof 
of a claim in the Court of Claims is no merely formal matter. Every 
case has been actually tried, and all proper defenses have been made 
by Government counsel employed for that particular purpose, under 
the direction of an Assistant Attorney General. 

The findings of fact made by the Court of Claims, and which have 
been considered in connection with every claim included in this bill, 
represent the result reached by the court after the trial of each case. 
The standing expression used by the Court of Claims introductory of 
its findings of fact is as follows : 

jippojirod for tho flainiiuit. :nirl tlio Attorney (icneral. by Mr. 

, liis assistant and uiidor hi.s direction, apix^ared for the defense 

nnd protection of the interests of the United States. 

The court. ni)on the evidence, and after considering the l)riefs and argnnients 
of connsel on both sides, makes the following findings of fact. 

By act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat, 837) , it was provided that in 
cases tried under said section 14 of the Tucker Act the court should 
accompany its findings of fact with — 

such conclusions as shall he sufficient to inform Congress of the nature and 
<'haracter of the demand, either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a gratuity,, 
against the TTnited States and the amount, if any, legally or equitably due from 
the United States to the claimant. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 7 

In cases tried since June 25, 1910, under the Tucker Act, or under 
section 151 of the Judicial Code, the court has added its conclusion 
to its findings in each case. One of these conclusions in a claim for 
taking- of Army supplies is here quoted from a finding or report on 
one of the claims covered by the bill, as follows : 

CONCLUSION. 

Upon the foregoing findings of fact tlie conrt conclndes that the claim herein 
is an equitable one in the sense that the United States received the benefit of 
the supplies for which claim is made. 

The decision of the Court of Claims in case of 8mith v. United 
States (19 C. Cls., 691) throws considerable light on the procedure 
of the court under the acts mentioned. The following is quoted from 
that case : 

This case was transmitted to this court by the Committee on War Claims of 
the House of Representatives under the Bowman Act (22 Stat. L., 485), and 
with the letter of transmission were sent a number of ex parte affidavits filed 
before that committee in support of claimant's demand. 

The claimant moves that those affidavits be printed and used in evidence at 
the trial of the case. This motion can not be allowed. 

The first paragraph of the report of the Committee on Claims of the House 
of Representatives in favor of the Bowman bill is as follows: 

" The only question presented to this committee for their consideration by 
the above-named bill is whether Congress and its committees and the executive 
departments shall have the privilege or right, if they deem it advisable, to have 
the facts in any case before them properly investigated by a tribunal which can 
ascertain those facts in a legal manner, in the same mode adopted by the courts 
which have jurisdiction of similar causes, and with the safeguard to the Govern- 
ment of the power of cross-examination of witnesses, all of which is impossible 
to be accomplished by Congress, its committees, or the executive departments." 

We refer to this language, not as furnishing any rule to us for the interpre- 
tation of the Bowman Act, but simply as showing the intent of the House of 
Representatives, and presumably of both Houses of Congress, in passing that 
act, to have the facts of any case ascertained " in a legal manner, in the same 
mode adopted by the courts which have .iurisdiction of similar causes and with 
the safeguard to the Government of the power of cross-examination of wit- 
nesses." 

That act authorized this court to adopt rules directly applicable to depart- 
mental and congressional cases, and we have adopted two such rules, framed in 
the spirit of the language of that report. 

The first of those rules is section 1 of Article XXII. as follows : 

" Section 1. Cases involving controverted questions of fact or law in any 
claim or matter transmitted to the court under the provisions of section 2 of 
the act of March 3, 1883, entitled 'An act to afford assistance and relief to 
Congress and the executive departments in the investigation of claims and 
demands against the Government,' shall be proceeded with in like manner 
and subject to the same rules, so far as applicable, as other cases in the 
court under its general jurisdiction, except as herein provided."' 

The second rule is in the second sentence of section 7 of the same article, 
the whole of which section is as follows: 

" Sec. 7. Within two months after the mailing of such notices, or within 
such further time as the court may allow, any person directly interested in 
the case may appear as a party therein by filing his petition, under oath, 
setting forth concisely and specifically his claim and interest. Thereafter the 
case shall be proceeded with, in like manner and subject to the same rules, 
so far as applicable, as other cases in the court under its general jurisdiction." 
These two rules place departmental and congressional cases, as to the matter 
of evidence, on the same footing as any other case against the United States 
brought in this court, and thereby bring them under the operation of section 
1083 of the Revised Statutes, which reads thus: 

" In taking testimony to be used in support of any claim, opportunity shall 
be given to the United'states to file interrogatories, or by attorney to examine 



8 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

witiies.ses. under stuh regulations as said fourt shall prescribe; aud like 
opportunity shall be afforded the claimant, iu cases where testimony is taken 
on behalf of the United States, under like regulations." 

The same rule was later stated bv the Court of Claims in Carroll 
>'. United States (20 C. Cls., 431)," as follows: 

But the court is of the opinion that the purpose of the Bowman Act was not 
to dispiMise with legal evidence, but to acquire it; and that when a claim is 
transmitted by a committee of Congress under the act the purpose is to secure 
the judicial ascertainment of facts by judicial means, namely, by that which 
the law defines to be competent evidence. 

In brief, it may be stated that every case tried by the court under 
the acts mentioned i)ursues about the same course as does an ordinary 
case in courts of civil jurisdiction, save that here the court, consisting 
<)f five 'judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the 
Senate, act as a jury, and determine the facts. All testimony is taken 
under cross-examination. It often happens that owing to the fact 
that witnesses are widely scattered, testimony is taken on one case in 
several diiferent i)laces or States, the attendance of counsel both for 
the United States and for the claimant being a necessary incident to 
the taking of depositions. 

The interests of the Government are further safeguarded by the 
fact that no counsel for the Government is permitted to admit any 
material fact against the interest of the Government; every material 
fact upon w^hich a claimant relies must be proven. 

One fact the committee desires to emphasize, and that is, that this 
bill does not include by any means all of the claims which have been 
tried by the Court of Claims under the Bowman and Tucker Acts. 
Many such claims, in fact, the great majority of them, have been 
made the subject of adverse findings which have caused them to be 
eliminated from consideration in connection with the preparation 
of this bill. 

The reports of the Assistant Attorney (xeneral in charge of the 
defense of cases in the Court of Claims show that since the enact- 
ment of the Bowman Act on March 3. 1S83. and of the Tucker Act 
on March 3. 18S7. practically two claims out of every three that 
have been referred to that court under these acts have been either 
<lismissed or made the subject of adverse findings, and it further 
appears that even when allowances have been made by the Court 
of Claims the claiuis have been so scaled down or reduced by the 
<-ourt that the total of favorable findings diu'ing the long period 
mentioned, of about 28 years, have been ouly about 8 per cent of the 
total amounts claimed in all the cases referred. 

It is thought by your committee that even this small percentage 
includes some claims wherein findings have been made favorable on 
property, but adverse on loyalty, and which under existing practice 
will therefoie not be paid. 

The fads ab()\e mentioued was set forth in House IJeport No. 288, 
Sixty-second Congress, second session, upon the bill (II. If. 19115) 
which i)a.ssed the House iu that Congress, and it was then stated by 
the conunittee: 

In the natural course of events ilit^ i)rop<»rtioii or percentage of favorable 
findings in war claims must be less in the cases still pending than in those 
already iriisl. owing to lapse of time and the inipossihilily of adducing the 
amount aiid character of proof demanded by the Court of Claims. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS_, ETC. 9 

The records of your eoiiuiiittee also s!)o\v a deeuled diuiiimtiou in the niiuiber 
of new claims presented for reference to the Court of Chums, such as leads 
to the belief that practically all war claims which furnish any reasonable 
probability of collection have been presented, and are now pending either before 
Congress, awaiting reference to the Court of Claims, or before the court, 
awaiting trial. 

The correctness of the statement qnoted is shown by the fact that 
since H. R. 19115 was introduced in the Sixty-second Congress, 
January 13, 1912, proposing appropriation for payment of the allowed 
Avar claims, there have been certified to Congress by the Court of 
Claims only 55 claims which have been favorably considered by the 
committee in preparing the present bill. That number of claims has 
been added to the claims covered by H. R. 19115, Sixty-second Con- 
gress, with a few previously inadA^ertently overlooked. 

In connection with the bill now presented, all claims reported as 
late as the end of the Sixty-second Congress have been considered. 

This means, therefore, that from about January 1, 191'2, to March 
3, 1913, only 55 claims were reported by the court of such a charac- 
ter as to entitle them to be favorably considered for inclusion in the 
present bill. 

Some claims have been considered by the committee Avhich have 
been omitted from this bill, as they were omitted from the similar 
bill in the Sixty-second Congress. This failure to include these other 
claims in such a bill as this one does not necessarily mean that they 
may not be favorably reported, either in individual bills or in bills 
proAdding payment for a number of similar claims. 

In view of the interest of over a thousand claimants in the passage 
of the bill now under consideration, how^ever, it has been deemed by 
the committee to be unwise to include any claims which might 
occasion serious question or possible controversy. 

The committee below sets forth a general statement as to claims 
of the ditferent classes covered by the bill. Following these general 
discussions of the claims by classes wall be found the Bowman and 
Tucker Acts and section 151 of the Judicial Code for convenient 
reference, and following those acts will be found a detailed statement 
of the material facts of each claim embraced in the bill. 

CLAIMS OF OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS OF THE UNION ARMY. 

It would appear to have been a general rule of the War Department, 
doubtless proper in its ordinary application, to deny to an officer of 
the volunteer forces pay of any rank in which he had not been 
formally mustered. In short, the muster rolls were made the sole 
criterion by wdiich to determine whether or not the officer was en- 
titled to the pay and allowances of a certain rank ; if the rolls showed 
him to have been mustered in as of a certain rank, he was held en- 
titled to that pay and those allowances appurtenant to that rank; 
otherwise not. 

It was found, however, that often this rule worked a great hard- 
ship, in that officers were duly commissioned by the governors of 
their States and that they actually performed the duties and func- 
tions of the rank to which they had been commissioned, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that they had not been mustered in as of that rank. 



10 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

In recognition of this hardship. Congress passed the joint resolu- 
tion which was approved July 26, 1866 (14 Stat. L., p. 368), reading 
as follows: 

.JOINT UKSOLUTIOX For 11\e roliof of eortain oflicers of tlu< Army. 

Be it resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of Ameriea in Congress assembled. That in every case in which a com- 
missioned officer nctiially entered on duty as such commissioned othcer, but by 
reason of being killed in battle, capture by the enemy, or other caixse beyond his 
control, and without fault or ne.^lect of his own. was not mustered within a period 
of not less than thirty days, the Pay Department shall allow to such officer full pay 
and emoluments of his rank from the date on which such officer actually entered 
on such duty as aforesaid, deducting from the amount paid in accordance with 
this I'esolution all pay actually received by such officer for such period. 

Sec. 2. And 6e it further resolved. That the heirs or legal representatives of 
any officer whose muster into service has been or shall be amended hereby shall 
be entitled to receive Ihe arrears of pay due such officer or the pension provided 
by law for the grade into which such officer is mustered under the provisions 
of the first section of this resolution. 

Approved, July 26, 1866. 

Later legislation upon this subject is that of the act approved 
February 24, 1897 (29 Stat. L.. p. 593). reading as follows: 

AN ACT To provide for the relief of cei-fain officers .and enlisted men of the volunteer 

forces. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of Ameriea in Congress assembled . That any person who was duly appointed or 
commissioned to be an officer of the volunteer service during the War of the 
Rebellion, and who was subject to the mustering regulations at the time ap- 
plit'd to members of the volunteer ser\ice shall be held and considered to have 
been nmstered into the service of the Ignited States in the grade named in his 
appointment or commission from the date from which he was to take rank under 
and b.v the terms of his said appointment or commission, whether the same was 
actually received by him or not, and shall be entitled to pay, emoluments, and 
pension as if actually mustered at that date: Provided, That at the date from 
which he was to take rank by the terms of his said appointment or commission 
tliere was a vacancy to which he could be so appointed or commissioned, and his 
command had either been recruited to the minimum number required by law and 
the regulations of the War Department, or had been assigned to duty in the 
field, and that he was actually performing the duties of the grade to which he 
was so appointed or commissioned: or if not so performing such duties, then he 
shall be held and considered to have been musteretl into service and to be en- 
titled to the benefits of such muster from sucfi time after the date of rank 
given in his commission as he may have actually entered uix)n such duties: 
Provided further. That any person held as a prisoner of war, or who may have 
been absent by reason of wounds, or in hospital by reason of disability received 
in tlie service in the line of duty, at the date of issue of his appointment or com- 
mission, if a vacancy existed for him in tlie grade to which so appointed or 
commissioned, shall be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been 
entitled under this act if he had been actually performing tlie duties of the 
grade to which he was ai>pointed or conmiissioned at said date: Provided fur- 
ther. That this act shall be construed to apply only in those cases where the 
commission bears date prior to June twentieth, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
tliree, or after that date when the commands of tlie persons appointetl or com- 
missioned were not below the minimum number required by then existing laws 
and regulations: And provided further. That the pay and allowances actually 
received for the period covered by the recognition extended under this act shall 
be deducted from the sums otherwise to be paid thereunder. 

Sec. 2. That the heirs or legal represent.-itives of any person whose muster 
into service shall be recognized and established under the terms of this act 
shall be entitlai to receive the arrears of pay and emoluments due, and the 
pension, if any, authorized by law. for the grade to which recognition shall be 
so extended. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 11 

Sec. 3. That the pay aucl allowances of any rank or grade paid to and re- 
ceived by any military or naval officer in good faith for services actually per- 
formed by such otficer in such rank or grade during the War of the Rebellion, 
other than as directed in the fourth proviso of the first section of this act, 
shall not be charged to or recovered back from such officer because of any defect 
in the title of such officer to the office, rank, or grade in which such services 
were so actually performed. 

Sec. 4. That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this 
act be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 

The case of Henry v. United States (6 C. Cls., 162) was a case 
involving the joint resolution of 1866, and the court said: 

When one is commissioned as second lieutenant in a Volunteer regiment by the 
governor of the State whence the regiment came and is assigned to duty by the 
colonel commanding in a company of which he has been first sergeant and, after 
applying for muster in and being refused, continues to incur all the responsi- 
bilities and perform all the duties of a commissioned officer, commanding the 
company in battle, and being the only officer attached to it, he is entitled to be 
paid as such, notwithstanding that at the time he was assigned to duty it had 
fallen below the minimum number entitling it to a second lieutenant. 

In that case the court also used the following language: 

The court is not unmindful of the learned argument addressed to it by the 
Assistant Attorney General, but it is also remembered that this suit affects not 
the claimant alone, but a class of citizens who deserve well of their country and 
who their country desires should receive the full measure of legal justice to 
which they may be entitled. For them there is no appeal to the Supreme Court; 
for the defendants there is. If this suit be decided adversely to the claimant by 
this court, the decision will be final against all of these soldiers. They are men 
who x'ose from the ranks by hard fighting and good conduct, earning their com- 
missions before they got them and working for them after they came; and it 
seems a strange anomaly that six years after the war ended such men should 
be driven to seek the fruits of their promotion in a court of justice. 

On appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States the decision 
of the Court of Claims was affirmed in favor of the claimant. (See 
U. S. V. Henry. 17 Wall., 405.) 

The Comptroller of the Treasury rendered a decision on the income 
tax erroneously deducted from pay of officers, to wit : 

Where a right to ]iay and allowances accrued prior to August 1. 1S70, the in- 
come tax authorized by laws enacted prior to that date is a proper stoppage 
against such pay and allowances, but where the right to collect pay and allow- 
ances for services rendered prior to August 1, 1870, did not exist until created 
by a law enacted after July 31, 1870, no part of the pay and allowances is tax- 
able. (Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury, vol. 13. p. .387. Dec. 7, 
1906; see also 39 C. Cls. R.. case of Wellington Barry.) 

The latest legislation upon the subject of these claims of officers of 
the Union Army is found in the act of April 19, 1910 (36 Stat., 312- 
324), making appropriation for maintenance of the Military 
Academy, the paragraph in question reading as follows: 

Hereafter in administering the act of Congress approved February twenty- 
fourth, eighteen hundre<I and ninety-seven, entitled "An act to provide for the 
relief of certain officers and enlisted men of the Volunteer forces," the decision 
of the War Department as to the right of any person to be held and considered 
to have been mustered into the service of the United States under the provisions 
of said act shall be conclusive, and no claims shall be allowed or considered 
under said act after the first of January, nineteen hundred and eleven. 

That enactment was followed by the decision of the Court of 
Claims in case of Frances Acker, widow of John W. Acker, v. United 
States (46 C. Cls., 63). In its decision in that case the court held 
that the statute above quoted absolutely prohibited the court from 



12 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

# 

going back of the report of the "War Department to the effect that 
an officer was mustered in on a certain date. The court held, in 
effect, that it mattered not what parol evidence might show as to 
})erforniance of the duties of a certain rank; that if the record showed 
the claimant was not mustered in as of a certain rank, that was 
conclusive. 

It will be observed that the act of April 10, 1910, provides that 
*' hereafter.'" in administering the law of 1897 in these cases, the 
decision of the War Department shall be final or conclusive. 

There is nothing in the act of April 19, 1910, or in the nature of 
these claims, which would seem to require that act to be given a 
letroactive construction either by the court or by Congress. 

On the contrary, the word "hereafter" would indicate the inten- 
ti<m of Congress to make the act of 1910 prospective in its operation 
rather than retroactive. 

In view of tlie deci,sion of the court in the Acker case, it appears 
impossible for any claimant whose claim was tried after April 19, 
1910, to secure even as much as a report of proven facts at the hands 
of the court. Hence, no more claims of this class can be considered 
by the court or reported to Congress. 

Every one of the elahns of thk elass carried hi/ th^ present Ijtll was 
sent to the court, iras ti'ierl^ and was made the suhject of findings of 
fact prior to April 19, WW. 

It is the view of the committee, as well as that of the Court of 
Claims, stated in its decision in the Henry case (above quoted), that 
these claimants are a class of citizens who deserve well of their 
country ; they are mostly men who rose from the ranks to hold com- 
missions; in many instances they earned their commissions before 
they received them, and worked for them after they were received. 

As a rule, the only reason for failure to muster in these officers as 
of the rank for which they claim pay was the fact that their organiza- 
tions had not sufficient men to bring them up to a certain standard 
of size. In some instances this was caused by casualties in battle. 
In any event, the services were actually rendered by these officers. 
When rendered, the United States secured the benefit of those 
services, and in the absence of any express statutory prohibition it is 
believed that those services should, in fairness, be paid for. 

Payment of the claims of this class included in this bill will nec- 
essarily conclude consideration of this class of claims, as no other 
claimants can be heard in the Court of Claims, in view Of the pro- 
visions of the act of April 19, 1910, as construed by the court in 
the Acker case. 

SPECIAL CLAIMS ARISING FROM ARMY SERVICE IN TIME OF WAR. 

The committee has included a few claims, aggregating only a 
small amount, arising from military service in time of war, not of 
the general class above considered. Several of them arose as an 
incident to the War with Spain. As they are treated as separate 
claims they have been treated individually in the detailed report on 
individual claims, following the general statement of the contents 
of the bill. 

In the tabulated analysis of the bill by classes of claims these 
claims have been included as a matter of convenient tabulation, with 
the claims of officers for difference in pa3% just above considered. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 13 

CLAIMS OF CHURCHES, MASONIC AND ODD FELLOWS' LODGES, 
SCHOOLS, COLLEGES, HOSPITALS, AND MUNICIPAL CORPORA- 
TIONS NOT AT SEAT OF WAR. 

There are 370 of claims of this general class, aggregating $486,- 
403,29. The greater number of them is for use and occupation of 
buildings, by proper military authority, for Army purposes, usually 
for hospital purposes, and sometimes as barracks or quarters. 

With the exception of some three or four, these claims were sent 
to the court under the terms of the Tucker Act. 

In case of a claim for use and occupation of buildings the amount 
reported by the court usually includes not only rental value during 
the period of occupancy by the troops but also damages incident to 
the occupancy in excess of ordinary wear and tear, evidently on the 
reasonable theory that the Army should either leave the building in 
as good condition as when possession was taken or else recompense 
the church or owner for special damages done the building. 

A number of these claims arose from the tearing down of build- 
ings in order to secure materials to be used for military purposes, 
such as construction of winter quarters, barracks, bunks, or bridges. 
In these cases the rule has been to report the value of the building 
as it stood before the demolition. 

In this regard the practice in claims of religious, educational, and 
eleemosynary institutions is diiferent from that in the claims of 
individuals. If the house belonging to an individual be torn down 
and the materials converted to proper military use, the Court of 
Claims would require that it be shown how many feet of lumber or 
how many thousand bricks were secured from the building, and it 
would then make an allowance for so many thousand feet of second- 
hand lumber or for so many thousand second-hand bricks. Under 
this rule, it might Avell happen that for a building worth $5,000 
when torn down the allowance made by the court would be only a 
few hundred dollars. 

This rule (and the distinction between claims of these institutions 
and those of private persons) is stated by the Court of Claims in its 
decision in case of the Presbyterian Church at Murfreesboro (33 
C. Cls., 339). The opinion in that case reads as follows: 

The invariable rule which has governed the court in this class of cases — that 
is, of cases for war damages — is tliis : 

The court allows only for property taken to be used and only for the value 
to the Government of the thing taken. That is to say, the court has never allowed 
for property taken to be destroyed or for the damages which the owner suf- 
fered by reason of the taking. Where houses were torn down and trees felled 
for military reasons nothing has been allowed. Where fruit trees and shade 
trees and fences were taken for fuel the owner has been allowed only for so 
much eordwood. Where a building was torn down and the material used the 
allowance has been for st) much old brick and second-hand lumber. Where a 
blooded stallion was taken for Army use the allowance has been simply for a 
Cavalry horse. Where an importetl cow was killed and eaten by the troops 
the allowance has been only for so much beef. Where the property taken was 
of a kind which could not properly be regarded as quartermaster or commissary 
stores or as hospital supplies, or engineers' material, the taking has been 
regarded as due to the depredations of individuals, and nothing has been 
allowed. In a word, the general principle which governs the court is that 
the amounts allowed are to be only to the extent of the benefit which the 
Government received by the taking, not for the injury which the owner suffered. 

The present case, in finding the value of the building, may seem a departure 
from the rule which has hitherto governed the court — the first and only excep- 
tion out of the hundreds of cases of war claims which have been tried and dis- 



14 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

l)OSed of in the course of the last 15 years. The reason for this <lei)artnre from 
a well-settle<l rule is this: 

The prooeodinj: in eases coming into this court under the Bowman Act is not 
to obtain a .iu(lirn)ent fixini; with finality the legal rl,!j;lits and lial)ilities of the 
Iiarties, hut sinii>ly a proceeding to procure for Congress such facts as will be 
availnlilc and useful when the question of legislative relief shall come before the 
two Houses. 

In cases of religious and charitable institutions and institutions of learning 
('ougi'ess have in repeated instances laid down a different rule than that here- 
inbefore adverted to as the rule of this court for what may be termed the 
measure of damages. In other words, whenever Congress have given relief for 
(he desi ruction of such a building, the legislative rule in repeated instances has 
invariably been to allow the value of the building as a building. The case be- 
fore rs is a case of that description. The court accordingly finds the value of 
the building as it stood when the military authorities took possession of it. 
Whethei- the owners are entitled or not entitled to that or to any relief is not 
a question before the court. It rests entirely within the legislative discretion. 

Even the more liberal of the rules mentioned by the Court of 
Claims in the above-quoted opinion, however, fail to give to this 
class of claimants as great a measure of relief as Avas accorded by 
Congress to the Eoman Catholic Churcli in the Philippine Islands, 

A reference to the action taken on the claim of that church would 
peem appropriate at this point. That claim was considered by a 
board of Army officers. Its findings and recommendation will be 
found on page 48 of House Report No. 696, Sixtieth Congress, first 
session, and the concluding portion thereof is as follows : 

Under the provisions of the orders convening this board we have the honor to 
recommend that Congress be asked to appropriate the sum of $363,030.19, United 
States cTirrency, for the payment of rentals of and damages to church property, 
Philippine. 

If (\)ngress should, in its liberality, desire to compensate the church for the 
spoliation and cai'r.ving away of sacred ornament.s. images, vestments, etc., we 
recommend that the sum of $40,000 be paid, as, in the opinion of the board, this 
sum would be fully ample. 

Congress did see fit to appropriate not only for the items of rentals 
and damages, but also for the depredations obviously committed 
wrongfully by individuals, and Congress did pay both the items 
above mentioned by act of March 26, 1908 (35 Stat. L., Part II, p. 
1227), in the total sum of $403,030.19. 

It will be noted that the single appropriation so made nearly equals 
the entire amount carried by this bill for payment of claims of this 
class, for churches of nearly every denomination, and including also 
Masonic and Odd Fellows' lodges, colleges, etc., and none of the 
claims included in this bill are for depredations or wanton destruc- 
tion. Several such claims have been reported by the Court of 
Claims, but in the preparation of this bill they have been omitted 
in order to obviate any possible controversy as to the propriety of 
their payment, although your committee can perceive no difference, 
in principle, between them and the claim of the Roman Catholic 
Church in the Philippines. 

Claims involving the destruction of buildings included in this bill 
are those in which the destruction was really an incident to the use 
or occupation of the building, as, for instance, a case where a college 
building was used for hospital purposes and was accidentally burned 
while being so used and occupied, apparently during process of fumi- 
gation of the building. 

The omission from this bill of church and lodge claims for mere 
destruction of buildings is not to be construed as an adverse report 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 15 

on those claims. It is with a view to the preparation and report of a 
bill covering- various claims of that general class — what may be prop- 
erly termed claims for destruction of church, lodge, and school build- 
ings — to the end that the question of their payment may be squarely 
presented to the House, without in any way embarrassing the pas- 
sage of this present bill. In short, as above indicated, this bill cover- 
ing ordinary war claims has been carefully prepared, with the express 
object of eliminating any claim concerning payment of which there 
might be any serious difference of opinion. 

LOYALTY IN CHURCH AND LODGE CLAIMS. 

In claims of this general class arising in seceding States the organi- 
zation which makes the claim is required to prove that, as a church 
or as a lodge^ it rendered no aid to the Confederate cause. If such 
proof is made, then it follows that the church or the lodge, consid- 
ered merely as an organization, should be held lo^'al. 

In some few cases this proof has not been made, and the court has 
reported adversely on the matter of loyalty. Such claims have been 
omitted from the bill which is the subject of this report. 

It is needless to say that this proof on loyalty in church and lodge 
claims does not go nearly as far as it is required to go in claims of 
individuals, who must prove not only that they gave no voluntary 
aid to the Confederacy, but must also prove that they in fact adhered 
to the cause of the Federal Government throughout the war. A 
great many claims of individuals have been dismissed or rejected 
by the Court of Claims because of failure of the claimants to make 
the showing demanded on this point, while it can usually be made in 
claims of churches, lodges, and similar organizations. 

ORDINARY INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS FOR STORES AND SUPPLIES. 

Claims of this class are shown by the petitions forming a part of 
the statements of each case as certified by the Court of Claims to 
usually embrace such items as horses, mules, cattle, hogs, corn, meat, 
fodder, fencing used and considered as cordwood, and, in some in- 
stances, use and occupation of real estate at regular military posts, 
sometimes for considerable periods. 

In this class of cases, covered by this bill, the Court of Claims has 
found the person from whom the property was taken in each case to 
have been continuously loyal throughout the Civil War, and that 
the property was taken by proper authority, for use of the Army, or, 
m claims for rent, that the reasonable rental value of premises occu- 
pied during the period of occupancy, with the damages incident to 
the occupation, amounts to a certain sum. 

As set forth in the decision of the Court of Claims in the case of 
Presbyterian Church at Murfreesboro, no allowance is made for 
depreciations, such as the taking of poultry, money, jewelry, etc. 

The jurisdiction of the Southern Claims Commission, to which 
more extended reference will be hereinafter made, was a narrow one 
as prescribed by statute and was rendered still more so by the rulings 
of the commission. 

That commission had no jurisdiction of a claim for rent; it held 
that a corporation was not a citizen and therefore that it could not 
prosecute a claim before the commission. 



16 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 



Claims of those avIio during the war were aliens could not be pre- 
sented to that commission, as it had authority to inquire into the 
claims of only persons who were citizens of insurrectionary States, 
and who were found loyal. 

It was held by that commission that a claim presented by one who 
had passed throua^h bankruptcy must be rejected. 

On the subject of loyalty, it held that not only must loyalty be 
proven of the person from whom the property was taken, but, in 
event of his death, of every distributee or heir or creditor. 

Of course, the Court of Claims, in proceeding under the Bowman 
and Tucker Acts, has acted with a laiowledge of law, and it may be 
said that in all these cases the court has passed upon two questions, 
as follows: 

First. Was the person from whom the property was taken, i. e.. the owner of 
the property, loyal to the Unitetl States Government throuRhont the Civil War? 

Second. Was the projierty for which claim is made appropriated, by proper 
authority, to the use of the Army, aud what was its value to the Government? 

In the cases embraced in this bill the first question has been 
answered in the affirmative by the Court of Claims, and it has further 
found the property to have been taken by proper authority for use 
of the Army, and has reported its value to the Government, according 
to the then current prices being paid by the Quartermaster and Com- 
missary Departments of the Government. 

Inasmuch as proof of continuous loyalty to the United States 
Government throughout the war is required in these cases, surprise 
has been expressed at times that any considerable number of claim- 
puts have been able to establish their loyalty in the Court of Claims. 

Relative to this matter, the committee includes in this report a 
table, compiled by the War Department from the official records, 
showing the number of troops furnished to the Union Army during 
the war by the different States, as follows : 

Table shotcing the quotas required from, and the credits allowed for men 
furnished by, the several States and Territories during the Civil War. 

[War Department, The Military Secretary's Office, May 15, 1905.] 



States and Territories 



Quotas 
required. 



Credits allowed for men furnished (enlistments and reen- 
listments).! 



White 
troops. 



Colored 
troops. 



Indians. 



Total 
Army. 



Sailors 

and 
marines. 



Total 
Army, 
Navy, 

and 
Marine 
Corps. 



Credits 
for men 
who paid 
commu- 
tation. 



44,797 



Alabama 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Dakota 

Delaware 

District of Columbia . 

Florida 

Illinois I 244,496 

Indiana 199,788 

Iowa I 79,521 



13,9.35 
13,973 



2,576 

8, 289 

15, 725 

4,903 

51,937 

206 

11,236 

11,912 

1,290 

255,057 

193, 748 

75, 797 



1,764 



954 
3,269 



1,811 

1,537 

440 



15, 

4, 

53, 

12, 
15, 
1, 
256, 
195, 
76, 



2,163 



94 
1, 353 



2,224 

1,078 

5 



2,576 

8,289 

15,725 

4,903 

55,864 

206 

12, 284 

16,534 

1,290 

259,092 

196,363 

76,242 



1,515 

' 1,386 
338 



55 
784 
67 



> The num>)ers under this heading, which agpregate 2,778,304, are the nnml)ers of credits for enlistment- 
and reenlistments and do not represent individuals. Some men enlLsled two or more times, but the nums 
ber of reenlLstments has never been officially determined. It has been estimated by this office, however,. 
from the best data now obtainable, that the whole number of individuals in service in the Union Army 
and Navy during the Civil War was 2,213,.365. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 



17 



Tiihic slioiriny ilic (jiioiaK rtiiiiiicd frniii. dud 
iiirnlshcd hy, tJir scrcru} Sfufc.s and '!'< i ritorio 



the crcdils (illdircd 
(III fill;/ tlir Ciril W(l, 



for )i\cii 
■ — Con. 



Status and Territories, 



Kansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Miciiigan 

Minnesota 

MLssLssippi 

Missouri 

Nebraslca 

Nevada 

New Hampshire. 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New Yorlc 

Nortli Carolina... 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Peimsylvania 

Rhode Island 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont 

Washington 

West Vii-ginia 

Wisconsin 

Indian nations . . . 
Colored troops ' . . 



Quotas 
required. 



12, 931 
100, 782 



73,587 
70,965 
139,095 
95,007 
26,326 



122, 496 



35, 897 
92, 820 



507, 148 

1,560 

306,322 



Credits allowed for men furnished (enlistments and reen- 
listments). 



White 
troops. 



Colored 
troops. 



Indians. 



Total 
Army. 



385,369 
18, 898 
1,560 



32. 074 



34,463 
109,080 



18,069 

51,743 

5, 224 

64,973 

.33,995 

122, 781 

85, 479 

23,913 

545 

100, 616 

3, 1.57 

1,080 

32,930 

67, 500 

6,561 

404,805 

3,156 

304,814 

1,810 

315,017 

19, 521 

31,092 

1,965 

32, .549 

964 

31,872 

91,029 



Total ■ 2,763,670 12,489,836 



2,080 
23, 703 



104 

S, 718 

3,966 

1,387 

104 



8,344 



125 
1,185 



4,125 
'5,092' 



8,612 
1,837 



196 
165 



I 99, 337 



3,530 



20, 
75, 
5, 
65, 
42, 
126, 
86, 
24, 

108, 

3, 

1, 

33, 

68, 

6, 

408, 

3, 

309, 

1, 

323, 

21, 

31, 

1, 

32, 

32, 

91, 

3, 

199, 



149 
446 
224 
077 
713 
747 
866 
017 
.545 
960 
157 
080 
055 
685 
561 
930 
156 
906 
810 
629 
358 
092 
965 
669 
964 
068 
194 
530 
337 



Sailors 

and 
marines. 



314 



5,030 

3,925 

19,983 

498 

3 



151 



882 
8,129 



39,920 
"3i274' 



14,307 

1,878 



178,975 



3,530 2,672,341 



105,963 



Total 
Army, 
Navy, 

and 
Marine 
Corps. 



20, 149 

75,760 

5, 224 

70, 107 

46, 638 

146,730 

87,364 

24,020 

545 

109,111 

3,157 

1,080 

33,937 

76, 814 

6,561 

448, 850 

3,156 

313, 180 

1,810 

337,936 

23, 236 

31,092 

1,965 

33, 288 

964 

32, 068 

91,327 

3,530 

199,337 



Credit 
for men 
who paid 
commu- 
tation. 



2 
3,265 



2,007 
3,678 
5,318 
2,008 
1,0.32 



692 
4,196 



18, 197 



6,479 



28, 171 
463 



5,097 



2, 778, 304 



86,724 



' Colored troops not specifically credited to any State. They were recruited as follows: In Alabama, 4,969; 
Arkansas, 5,526; Colorado, 95; Florida, 1,044; Georgia, 3,486; Louisiana, 24,052; Mississippi, 17,869; North 
Carolina, 5,035; South Carolina, 5,462; Tennessee, 20,133; Texas, 47; VL-ginia, 5,723; at large, 5,896. 

It will be noted that seceding States of the Confederacy furnished 
the following numbers of white troops who served in Federal mili- 
tary organizations raised in tho.se States: 

Alabama 2, 576 

Arkansas i___- 8,289 

Florida ], 290 

I.onisiana . 5, 224 

Mississippi 545 

Nortli Carolina 3, 156 

Tennessee 31, 092 

Texas 1. 965 

West Virginia 31, 872 

Total 86. 009 

Wlien the official records show that seceding States gave 86,009 
white soldiers to the Federal Army, it would seem plain that there 
must have been manv thousand loyal people in the Southern States, 

The Court of Claims, in case of Neal v. United States (21 C. Cls., 
240), commented upon this condition of affairs in the State of Ten- 
nessee. The following is quoted from that decision as shoAving the 

1985&— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 2 



18 clXims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 

relatively large quota contributed l>.v one of the seceding States to 
the Federal service: 

Before the military (leeupation of tlie. State was roniplete a j,'ro:it muuber of 
refugees passed over into Kentueky ami enlisted in Union regiments forming 
there. This number the adjutant general of Tennessee, in his reiiort for 18(56, 
computes to be alKUit 7,1)00. Within the State there were rai.sed and organized 
32 reiriments of Cavalry and Infantry and 5 l)atteries of Light Artillery, con- 
taining, according to the rolls of the War I)ei)artment. 31,092 white troops. 
We may therefore conclude that the nmnber of white troops furnished by the 
Stale of Tennessee was. in round numbers, not far from 38,000. 

Rut the magnitude of this contribution to the volunteer forces of the United 
States will be best .ippreciated by comparison : 

Tennessee contributed uu)re white trooiis than either New Hampshire 
(33,937), West Virginia (.32.008). or A'ermont (33.28s) : nearly twice as many as 
either Kansas (20.149), Rhode Island (23.2:!(iK or Minnesota (24.020): more 
than twice as many as either California (15.72.j) or the District of Columbia 
(16,534) ; about three times as many as Delaware (12,284). * * * 

These historical facts of record are here set forth in the belief that 
they will be of interest to those who must express themeselves upon 
the'^ merits of this bill. They simply go to show that, in fact, there 
was a very large loyal element in the Southern States, and when the 
Court of Claims has decided upon the legal evidence submitted, that 
a claimant has shown that he belonged to this large number of south- 
ern people who adhered to the Union, it would seem obvious that 
there is nothing inherently improbable about such being a fact. 

The Conrt of Claims is charged with a solemn duty, that of de- 
termining the facts for the information of Congress, and when it 
has found the facts, that should effectually settle them, especially as 
that court has never yet been charged with entertaining any bias 
against the Government. 

LACHES. 

At various times criticism has been made of claims of this general 
class on tlie supposed ground that the claimants had been guilty of 
inexcusable deky or laches in not following up the remedies given 
them by statute. 

As to claims tried by the court under the Bowman Act no such 
question can be raised with the slightest semblance of reason, for the 
fact that the court has tried a case under the Bowman Act shows on 
its face that the claim was not barred for previous failure to present 
it. Claims barred by any law of tiie United States did not come 
within the jurisdiction of the court under the Bowman Act. Cer- 
tainly the reasonable and legal presumption is that Avhen the court 
has tried a case under the terms of an act giving a very limited juris-' 
diction the facts of that case were such as to bring the claim within 
that limited jurisdiction. Any different presumption would be a 
presumption that the Court of Claims either was ignorant of the 
law under which it acted or willfully disregarded the statute. As- 
suredly neither of these presumptions can be properly followed. 

In claims tried under the Bowman Act, it follows, therefore, that 
if the claimant ever had any remedy whatsoever he followed that 
remedy within proper time, and that, notwithstanding this, his claim 
was rejected: that it has since been judicially tried, and that suffi- 
cient evidence has been produced in the Court of Claims to legally 
establish the facts reported by the court. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 19 

For the reasons stated any discussion of supposed laches in regard 
to Avar claims must refer to what are commonly called Tucker Act 
claims or to claims tried under the provisions of section 151 of the 
Judicial Code, which went into effect January 1, 1912. 

In considerino; this questi(m of laches it will be necessary to trace, 
as briefly as possible, the legislation affecting war claims. 

At the beginning of the war the Court of Claims was open to 
filing of suits by any citizen whose property had been taken for pub- 
lic use. It Avas organized b}^ act of February 24, 1855 (10 Stats., 
612), and Avas reorganized by act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stats., 765). 
Under the act of March 3. 1863. it Avas required that claimants show 
loyalty, but Avith that condition citizens might file suits to recover 
compensation for property taken. 

The case of Grant v. United States (1 C. Cls., 41) was a claim 
arising from the Civil War. It appeared that United States mili- 
tary forces, under proper orders, burned A^arious military supplies 
and a flour mill OAvned by an Army contractor in order to prevent 
the supplies and mill from falling into the hands of Confederates. 

On the case so presented the court held the destruction of the 
property to constitute in laAv a " taking " for public use, and Grant 
w^as giA-^en judgment for $41,530 as the value of his property de- 
stroyed. 

In the light of subsequent eA'ents it Avould appear that Congress 
became apprehensiA^e as to the number and amount of claims which 
would probably be filed in the Court of Claims, and, for the pur- 
pose of taking aAvay from citizens their then existing legal right to 
bring suit for compensation for property taken, the act of July 4, 
1864 (13 Stats., 381), was enacted, AAdiich expressly depriA^ed the 
court of all jurisdiction OA^er such claims. 

Section 1 of that act proAddes : 

That the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims shall not extend to or include 
any claim against the United States growing out of the destruction or appropria- 
tion of. or damage to, property by the Army or Navy, or any part of the Army 
or Navy, engaged in the suppi'ession of the rebellion, from the commencement 
to the close thereof. 

That statute was construed by the court in case of Corbett (1 C. 
Cls., 139), and it was there held that said act must cause the dismissal 
of every pending claim then already before the court of the class 
mentioned. 

These facts are important as shoAving the deliberate intent of Con- 
gress (doubtless as a measure of public policy at the time) to take 
away, even from loyal citizens, their legal right to go into the Court 
of Claims. That act left them Avith no legal right or remedy. It 
prohibited the court from hearing any such claim. 

It is true that this same act gave a very limited remedy b}^ con- 
ferring upon the Quartermaster General and the Commissary General 
jurisdiction to entertain the claims of loyal citizens of States not in 
rehelUon for supplies taken for Army use. 

As that act stood, a man living in Tennessee, serving in the Union 
Army, Avhose propert}^ Avas taken for Army use, could make no claim 
for payment, because no door was open to him. 

By joint resolution of June 18, 1866 (14 Stats., 360), this act of 
July 4, 1864, Avas made applicable to the counties of Berkeley and 
Jefferson, in West Virginia ; and by joint resolution of July 28, 1866 



20 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

(14 Stats., 370), it was extended to apply to loyal citizens of 
Tennessee. 

So far as concerned claims for commissary supplies, the act of 
July 4. 18(')4. had a very limited operation owing to the fact that no 
clai'uis were paid by the Commissary General unless accompanied by 
official receipts for the property, or unless the property was found to 
iiave been accounted for on the returns of some commissary officer. 
As such receipts were seldom oiven and as such property was seldom 
placed upon the property returns, but few claims were allowed by 
the Commissary General. 

As to claims for quartermaster stores, the act did afford some 
relief. The Quartermaster General appointed agents to investigate 
claims and these officers made persoual iuAestigations and took 
sworn statements of Avitnesses both for and against the claim, and a 
considerable number of such claims were paid in some amount. 
These examinations were largely ex parte in their nature, however, 
and therefore the result was unsatisfactory, as might be expected. 

By act of June 15, 1880 (21 Stat. L., 586), however, it was provided 
that thereafter notice of the investigation should be given the claim- 
ant, who was accorded the privilege of cross-examining witnesses 
for the Government. This act, while correct in pj'inciple, was passed 
after the greater number of claims before the Quartermaster General 
had Ijeen disposed of. The right to present claims before the 
Quarteruiaster General terminated January 1, 1880. 

As will be noted, no claimants in seceding States (save the State of 
Tennessee and two counties of West Virginia) wei'e given any rights 
to present claims by said act of 1864. The first opportunity given 
them of making known their claims was conferred by the act of 
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. L.. 524), which provided for the establish- 
ment of what is commonly known as the '' Southern Claims Com- 
mission.'' 

This commission consisted of three commissioners appointed by 
the President. It formulated rules for the transaction of business 
before it, and one of the first rules announced was to the effect that 
in every claim for $3,000 or upward all Avitnesses must be brought 
to AVashington City to testify in person before the commission, testi- 
mony in smaller claims to be taken before subordinate officers of the 
commission, known as special commissioners, who acted both as 
commissioners in taking the testimony and also as cross-examining 
'ifficers. 

This rule as to the submission of testimony is set forth in the first 
report of the commission, made to the Speaker of the House on De- 
cember 11, 1871. Obviously, compliance with such a rule was im- 
possible to many claimants, ov^ing to the great expense necessarily 
incident to bringing numerous witnesses to Washington, paying their 
transportation and hotel bills, etc. 

Later the rule was amended by the commission so as to apply only 
in claims for $5,000 or more. The hardship of even the amended rule 
was evidently recognized by Congress, and by act of May 11, 1872 
(17 Stat. L., 97), it was provided that testimony must be submitted 
before the commissioners in person only in claims of $10,000 or more. 

It would seem from an examination of the index of claims filed 
before that commission that many claimants were unable to comply 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 21 

even with this requirement, as many claims for more tlian $10,000 
were reported as barred for nonprosecution. 

While it would appear that in providing* for the establishing of 
this commission Congi*es,s intended that claimants should be given 
opportunity to secure a fair hearing of their claims, the reports made 
by the commission show that proceedings before the commission were 
characterized by anything but fairness. 

Special agents were appointed hy the commission, who made inves- 
tigation of claims after the claimants had adduced their evidence. 
This investigation was purely ex parte and secret. The reports of 
the commission show that even when a claimant desired to be present, 
either in person or by his counsel, at the examination of witnesses 
called by the special agent for the Government, this privilege was 
denied. In many instances claims are shown to have been rejected 
solely upon ex parte affidavits thus taken by special agents, and in 
some instances statements were submitted in opposition to the claim, 
which statements were not even verified. 

It is small wonder that people in general had but slight confidence 
in the good faith and fair intention of a tribunal which adopted such 
star-chamber methods of i:)roceclure. 

Finally, only 10 months after the enactment of the statute which 
permitted the taking of testimony locallv in claims for less than 
$10,000, Congress enacted the act approved'March 3, 1873 (17 Stat.L., 
577), which provided: 

That the commissioners of claims sliall not receive any petition for the allow- 
ance of any claim or claims nnless such petition shall he presented to and filed 
with them on or before the third day of March, eighteen hnndi-od and seventy- 
three. 

From the very terms of the statute, taken in connection with the 
date of its approval, it will be seen that it went into elfect on the very 
day it was approved. In other words, the right of citizens to file 
their claims before that commission was abrogated without a day's 
notice. 

Careful examination of the act establishing the claims commission 
shows that it contained no provision limiting the time within which 
claims might be filed before the commission, and no time limit for 
presentation of claims to the commission was ever fixed until the 
passage of the act of March 3. 1873, which cut off the right to file 
such claims. 

In referring to this legislation the Committee on War Claims in 
the Sixtieth Congress stated, in House Eeport No. 543, Sixtieth Con- 
gress, first session (certain typographical errors being corrected) : 

As it is apparent that the Government, in terminating without warning the 
right to file claims before said commission, acted witliont a proper and fair 
regard for the- rights of citizens, who had no re;ison to suppose that the time 
for tiling their claims was to be thus abrniitly terminated, it would seem to 
follow that tlie failure of claimants to file their claims before said connnission 
should not be deemed an evidence of negligence or laches on tlieir part, but 
such claimants should rather be regarded as the A'ictims of misfortune in that 
their right to present their claims to said commission was terminated without 
warning to them. 

With the view expressed in tliat report the present conmiittee fiUly 
concur. In connection with this phase of the subject also the follow- 



22 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

ing thought is suggested in Senate Document No. 580, Sixtieth Con- 
gress, second session, being a memorandum on the subject of chiims: 

From the legislative history of the United States it must be apparent that its 
policy as to the payment of clalnis originatiu.c during the Civil War has been 
to distribute the amounts iner a great number of years. However harsh this 
rule has been, however unjust to many worthy claimants who have been c(mi- 
pelled to wait indeliiiitely for relief, the original legislation which deprived them 
of an established legal remedy was justified by the pressing necessities of the 
times, since which time Congress has from time to time enacted legislation 
under which various classes of claimants were successively given a hearing and 
a more or less tardy settlement made on the findings of various governmental 
tribunals. 

Section 14 of the Tucker Act, under which many chiims have been 
referred by resohition to the Court of Chiims. requires that court to — 

report to such House the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can 
be liquidated, including any facts bearing uiiou the question where there has 
been delay or laches in presenting such claim or ;ip))lying foi' such grant, gift, 
or bounty, and any facts bearhig upon the <piestion whether the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

Careful scrutiny of this i)rovision \Y()iihl indicate that Congress 
wished to be apprised Avhether there was any excu.se otfered for fail- 
ure to resort '' to any established legal remedy.'' It would seem only 
reasonable that unless there had been some established "' legal rem- 
edy " to which a claimant might have resorted, he could not in 
reason be held guilty of laches in presenting his claim. 

It is certainly a serious question whether or not it could be said 
that the right to file a claim before the Southern Claims Commi.ssion 
could be termed a '"' legal remedy,"' as that phrase is used in English 
or American jurisi)rudence. As above pointed out, that commission 
was a tribunal which denied to claimants the right of being present 
at the taking of testimony in l)ehalf of the Government, which denied 
the right of cross-examination to claimants, and which often based 
its adver.se decisions upon ex parte affidavits .secured by its agents 
and upon equally ex parte reports of those agents. 

It is the opinion of the connnittee that the provision of the Tucker 
Act above quoted was intended to apply to cases where the claimants 
at one time had a full, adequate, and complete remedy at law% but 
failed to resort to that remedy, and that the doctrine of laches has no 
pro]:>er or rea.sonable ai)i)lication to claims of the class covered by 
this bill. Acting ujion this theory, the committee has included in this 
bill claims concerning which the (^oiu't of Claims has found that no 
reason appeared for noni)ie.sentation to the Southern Claims Com- 
mission. The claims have been found to be meritorious, and that is 
deemed a sufficient reason for their ])ayment. 

LACHES AS APPLIED TO CLAIMS OF CHURCHES, ETC. 

As to the claims of churches, lodges, colleges, and corporations, 
or quasi corporations, the Southern Claims Commission held that 
it had no jurisdiction of such claims. The jurisdiction of the com- 
missi(m Avas restricted to the claims of loyal citizens of insurrec- 
tionary States, and it Avas held by the commission that such insti- 
tutions or associations did not fall w^ithin the definition of the word 
'• citizens." 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 23 

In the report of the commission in case of the Indiana Methodist 
Church, of Portsmouth, Va.. on page 381 of the consolidated reports 
for the years 1871, 1872, 1873, and 1874 it was stated by the com- 
mission : 

This claim is for ami on behalf of a eorixn-ation. After full coiisideratiou aud 
consultation we have heretofore decided that a corporation has no standing 
before this commission. It can not prove " loyalty " and is not a " citizen." 
The claim is therefore disallowed. 

On pages 534-535 of said reports is fonncl the decision of the com- 
mission in case of the Calhoun Presbyterian Church, of Charleston, 
Tenn., as follows : 

We have no jurisdiction over claims of such associations, and therefore must 
reject the claim. 

From the foregoing it is therefore apparent that even the doubt- 
ful and questionable privilege of presenting a claim before the South- 
ern Claims Commission was denied to claimants of this class, under 
an obviously unsound view of the law. notwithstanding vvhich the 
Court of Claims has reported that no reason appears why the claims 
of churches, etc.. were not presented at an earlier date. 

The theory on which your committee has proceeded is. that if a 
claim is just it should be paid. If it was susceptible of collection 
years ago and was not then collected, then the claimant has lost 
the use of his money just that long, and the Government has had 
the benefit of the delay to the extent of the use of the amount due. 

The position of this committee with relation to this matter of laches, 
so far as concerns war claims, is the same as that held by preceding 
committees in the Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses, 
and it was most emphatically indorsed by the House on March 2, 
1011, when the House had under consideration the bill codifying the 
laws relating to the judiciarv. Reference is made to the Congres- 
sional Record of :March 2. 1011. pages 4134 and 4135. 

As reported to the House by the c-onferees. that bill contained a 
provision which, in effect, made a favorable finding by the Court of 
Claims on the matter of laches jurisdictional in every claim referred 
under the provisions of section 151 of that codification, which section 
replaces the fourteenth section of the Tucker Act. 

When this matter was brought before the House, the conference 
report had been already adopted by the Senate; but, as was stated on 
the floor by the chairman of the committee and also by another mem- 
ber of the committee having charge of that bill, it was evident that 
the enactment of such a provision would practically nullify the effect 
of section 14 of the Tucker Act and of the .substituted section 151 of 
the codification, and so clear was the demand for the elimination of 
that provision that the two Houses of Congress agreed to an extraor- 
dinary manner of elimination by the adoption of a coucm-rent reso- 
hition to that effect, directing that the provision be stricken from the 
bill before final enrollment. 

That action, taken by both Houses, would seem susceptible of no 
construction other than that of an express approval of what has been 
said by this committee, to the effect that when a claim has been found 
by the Court of Claims to possess merit, and it is a case of a class in 
v^'hich no real, complete, adequate, and legal remedy had been afforded, 



24 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

then no laches is iini)iitabU\ hut the claim should be paid regardless of 
delay in its presentation. 

"With relation to this matter of delay or laches, it is further the view 
of 3'our conunittee that if a line is to be drawn against any claims by 
reason of delay in their presentation, and the drawing of which line 
would preclude their payment, then, as a matter of plain justice to the 
claimants, it should be drawn when the claim is presented to Congress, 
so that the claimant in such case could be apprised at the outset that 
his claim is not such a one as will receive favorable consideration. 

When the claim has been entertained by Congress, however, and 
has been referred to the Court of Claims; when the claimant has 
secured services of counsel ; has adduced his evidence in support of his 
claim, and has brought his case to trial before the Court of Claims; 
and when that court has actually heard the arguments and has tried 
the case, and has reported that the claimant remained loyal through- 
out the Civil War, and that property of a certain value was taken 
from him for the use of the United States Army or Government, on 
which report it is evident that the claim is of a general class Avhich has 
been heretofore paid by Congress, as constituting at least an equitable 
demand upon the United States; when all these steps have been 
taken, it is the judgment of your committee that it is then too late to 
hold the claimant precluded by the delay which may have occurred in 
the presentation of his claim. 

In brief, after having been informed by the findings of fact made 
b}' the Court of Claims that the claim is a just one, Congress can not 
in fairness refuse to render effective the report of the Court of Claims, 
but should appropriate for payment of the claim. 

STATUTES UNDER WHICH THE CLAIMS INCLUDED IN THE BILL 
HAVE BEEN TRIED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. 

THE IJOWMAX ACT. 

122 Stat. I>.. p. 48.>.1 

.VN ACT To alTovd assistance and rolief to Conjrres.s and tho executive departments in the 
investiijation of olaiiris and demands aijainst tli(> Government. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representaiircs of the United 
Statcf! of Ainrnrci in Cotiprcxft (i/^scmhlrd. That whenever a claim or matter is 
pendinu Itcforc any coinmittce of Ihc Senate or House of Iit']ires(>ntn fives, or 
before either House of Congres.s, which involves the investigation and determina- 
tion of facts, tlie committee or House may cause the same, with the vouchers, 
papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to be transnutted to the 
Court of Claims of the United States, and the same shall there be proceeded in 
under such rules as the court may adopt. When the facts shall have been 
found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report the same 
to the conunittee or to the House by v/hich the case was transmitted for its 
consideration. 

Sicc. 2. That when a claim or matter is pending in any of the executive depart- 
ments which may involve controverted questions of fact or law, the head of 
such departmeut may tnuismit the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and 
documents i)ertaining thereto, to said court, and the same shall be there pro- 
ceeded in under sucli rules as the court may adopt. When the facts .ind con- 
clusions of law shall have been found, the court shall not enter .iudgment 
thereon, but shall report its findings and opinions to the department by which 
it was triinsiuitled for its guid.-iiice and action. 

Sec. 3. Tiie .jurisdiction of s.-iid coiu't sh:dl not extend to or include any claim 
against the TJniKxl States growing out of the destruction or damage to property 
by the Army or Navy during the War for the Suppression of the Rebellion, or 
for the use iind occupation of real estate by any part of the military or naval 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 25 

forces of the United States in the operation of said forces during the said war 
at the seat of war; nor shall the said court have jurisdiction of nny claim 
against the United States which is now harred by virtue of the provisions of 
any law of the United States. 

Sec. 4. In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to 
any part of military or naval forces of the United States for their use during 
the late War for the Suppression of the Rebellion, the petition shall aver that 
the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies 
or stores were taken, did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was 
throughout that war loyal to. the Government of United States, and the fact 
of such loyalty shall be a jurisdictional fact ; and unless the said court shall, on a 
preliminary inquiry, find that the person who furnished such supplies or stores, 
or from whom the same were taken as aforesaid, was loyal to the Government 
of the United States throughout said war, the court shall not have jurisdiction 
of such cause, and the same shall, without further proceedings, be dismissed. 

Sec. 5. That the Attorney General, or his assistants, under his direction, shall 
appear for the defense and ])rotection of the interests of the United States in all 
cases which may be transnutted to the Court of Claims under this act, with the 
same power to interpose counterclaims, offsets, defenses for fraud practiced or 
attempted to be practiced by claimants, and other defenses, in like manner as 
he is now required to defend the United States in said court. 

Sec. 6. That in the trial of such cases no person shall be excluded as a witness 
because he or she is a party to or interested in the same. 

Sec 7. That reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act. if not 
finally acted upon during the session at which they are reported, shall be con- 
tinued from session to session and from Congress to Congress until the same 
shall be finally acted upon. 

Approved, March 3, 1883. 

THE TUCKER ACT. 
[24 Stat. L.. p. 505.] 

AN ACT To provide for the briiic-iii;;- of suits asiaiust tlie (Joveninieiit of tlie ITnited 

States. 

(This Is an act providing for the prosecution of general jurisdiction cases, 
except section 14, which relates to congressional cases, and is as follows:) 

Sec 14. That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in 
either House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the 
United States, legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person, 
the House in which such bill is pending may refer the same to the Court of 
Claims, who shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of 
the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled "An 
act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the executive departments in 
the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," and report 
to such House the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can be 
liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question whether there has 
been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, 
or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the 
claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. 

Approved, March 3, 1887. 

ACT OF JUNE 2."), 1010. 

|:f(5 Stats.. S:^.] 

Be it enacted by the Senate mid House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled , That section fourteen of the act of March 
third, eighteen hundretl and eighty-seven, entitled "An act to provide for the 
bringing of suits against the Government of the United States," be, and the 
same is hereby, amended by adding at the end thereof the words " together 
with such conclusions as shall be sufficient to inform Congress of the nature 
and character of the demand, either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a 
gratuity, against the United States," so that when amended it shall read as 
follows : 

" Sec 14. That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in 
either House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the 
United States, legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person, 



26 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

• 
the Houso in wliit-li such bill is peiidiiij: may refer the same to the Court of 
(Maims, who shall iiroceed with the same in aceordauce with the provisions of 
the act ai)indv(>d March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled 'An 
act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the executive departments in 
the investigation of claims and demands against the Government,' and report 
to such House the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can be 
liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question whether there has 
l>een delay or laches in presenting such claim, or applying for such grant, gift, 
or bounty, and any tacts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any 
statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse 
the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy., together 
with such conclusions as shall be sufficient to inform Congress of the nature 
and character of the demand, either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a 
gratuity, against the t'nited States and the amount, if any. legally or ecpiitably 
due from the United States to the claimant. 

It will be noted that the folhnviiio- section of the Judicial Code is 
practically identical with ihe above-cinoted .section 14 of the Tucker 
Act. as amended June 25. 1010. with an added proviso. 

SKCTION l.-.l OF TUK .JUUICIAI. COI)K. 

\:u; Slats.. ii::s. I 

Skc. ini. Whenever any bill, except for a pension, is pending in either House 
of Congress providing for tlie payment of a claim against the United States, 
legal or e(iuitai)h>. or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person, the House in 
which such bill is pending may. for the investigation and determination of facts, 
refer the same t(» the Court of Claims, which shall ])roceed witli the same in 
accordance with such rules as it may adopt and report to such House the facts 
in the case and the amount, where the same can be liquidated, including any 
facts bearing ui)on the question whether there has been delay or laches in pre- 
senting such claim or ai)plying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts 
bearing u])()n the (piestion whether tlie bar of any statute of limitation should 
be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse tlae claimant for not having 
resorted to any established legal remedy, together with sucli conclusions as 
shall be sutiicient to inform Congress of the nature and character of the demand, 
either as a claim, legal or equitable, or as a gratuity against the Uuite<l States, 
and tlie amount, if any, legally or equitably due from the United States to the 
claimant: Proridcrl. lioicevo: That if it shall ap]»ear to the satisfaction of the 
court ujion the facts established that, under existing laws or tlie provisions of 
this chapter, the subject matter of the bill is sucli tliat it has jurisdiction to 
render judgment or decree thereon, it sliall proceed to do so, giving to either 
l)arty such further opportunity for hearing as in its judgment justice shall 
require, and it shall rei)ort its proceedings therein to tlie House of Congress by 
which the same was referred to said court. 

REPEAL OF BOWMAN ACT. 

Section 'iDT of the Judicial Code (:>() Stats.. 11G8) expressly repeals 
various statutes, and includes the l>()wnian Act in its repealing pro- 
visions, as follows: 

Skc. 297. The following .si-ctions of the lieviscd Statutes ;\nd acts and parts 
of acts are hereby repealed: 

« * * * * ::• * 

An act to afford assistance and relief t<i Congress and tln' executive depart- 
ments in the investigation of claims and demands against the (iovernment, 
approviMl March third. (Mghtecn hundred and eighty-three. 

DETAILED REPORT SHOWING NATURE OF EVERY CLAIM, AR- 
RANGED BY STATES. 

Nort;. — The States are arranged alphabetically, beginning with Alabama. 
Claims of each State are arranged alphabetically : where original claimant is de- 
ceased, the claim is arranged alphabetically according to name of decedent, and 
not according to name of representative or heirs. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 27 

In this iiiemui-aiida names of decedents are given first, followed by names of 
representatives. 

The findings of the Conrt of Claims are printed in the Senate or Honse docu- 
ments indicated. Descriptions of documents are abbreviated, e. g., " S. D, 
215-62-2 " signifies Senate document No. 215, Sixty-second Congress, second 
session. 

After the statement of material facts of each claim (other than claims of 
Union officers for difference in pay), it is stated whether the claim has pre- 
viously passed either or both Houses of Congress. With relation to such state- 
ment any claim passed by either House in the Sixtieth Congress was passed in 
H. R. 15372, Sixtieth Congress. Claims passed by the Senate in the Sixty-first 
Congress were included in S. 7971, Sixty-first Congress. Claims passed by the 
House in the Sixty-first Congress were included in H. R. 32767, Sixty-first Con- 
gress. Claims passed by either House in the Sixty-second Congress were in- 
cluded in H. R. 19115. Sixty-second Congress, either as passed by the House or 
as amended by the Senate. 

The report upon each claim has purposely been made as concise as tlie facts 
permit. 

ALABAMA. 

Houston L. Bell. (S. D. 215-62-2.) Tucker Act. Referred to 
court March -3, 1909. Court finds claimant was loyal throughout war 
because of tender A^ears: that supplies were taken from him, for Army 
use, reasonably worth $810. Claim first presented to Fiftieth Con- 
gress but not sent to court until Sixtieth Congress, some 20 years 
later. Findings on loyalty and property satisfactory. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Solomon L. Casey. (Mary F. Casey Tucker, sole heir.) (H. D. 
364-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. The find- 
ings show supplies were taken for Army use from a mother. Eebecca 
Davis Casey, and two daughters, Mary F. Casey Tucker and Eliza- 
beth Jane Casey. Reading the findings in connection with the peti- 
tion, it is evident that the husband and father, Solomon L. Casey, 
died before the supplies were taken, and at a time when title stood 
in his widow and children. The widow was found not loyal, but the 
two children were found loyal by reason of their tender years dur- 
ing war. It is found by the court that supplies were taken from 
this widoAv and her two children, worth $1,130. One-third belonged 
to the mother and one-third to each child. Reading the entire state- 
ment of case with the findings, it is clear that the daughter Elizabeth 
Jane Casey died, leaving the other sister. Mary F. Casey Tucker, as 
her sole heir. The committee has eliminated the share of the mother, 
and proposes to pay the surviving child, Mary F. Casey Tucker, two- 
thirds of the value of the supplies taken for Army use, one-third in 
her own right, and one-third as heir of her sister, or a total of $753.34, 
which is obviously due. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

J. H. Carter. (H. D. 381-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court, 
March 31, 1908. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Com- 
mission as mentioned in the statement of case. Claim is on page 45 
of printed index of such claims. Claimant found loyal and court 
finds supplies worth $1,230 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Daniel Carroll. (H, D. 813-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
February 12, 1907. Prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission 



28 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

and found on paire 44 of index of snch claims. Claimant found loyal 
and it is found that supplies worth $150 were taken for Army use. 
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Leroy Campbell. (T. F. Vann, administrator.) (H. D. 699-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Claim sent to court February 26, 1889. Claim prose- 
cuted before Southern Claims Commission and is found on page 42 
of index of such claims. Claimant found loyal, and it is found that 
supplies worth $475 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Bethel G. Chandler. (John A. Chandler, administrator.) 
(S. D. 617-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution 
March 2, 1907. That court reports that the decedent was loyal, and 
that supplies worth $743 were taken from him for Army use. Claim 
Was before Fifty-fiftli. Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eiglith Congresses 
without action. Findings satisfactory on loyalty and property. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

David Crow. (Douglas Taylor, administrator.) (H. D. 436- 
62-2.) Bowman Act. Claim sent to court January 15, 1906. Was 
prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 
60 of index of such claims. The court reports that Davis was loyal, 
and that supplies worth $120 were taken from him for Army use. 
It is further reported that Davis was a slave till freed during war and 
became the owner of this insignificant amount of property after be- 
coming free. Findings entirely satisfactory. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Henry Davis. (H. D. 680-60-1.) Bowman Act. Claim sent 
to court February 26, 1895. Was prosecuted before Southern Claims 
Commission, appearing on page 64 of index of such claims. Court 
reports claimant loyal and that supplies worth $135 were taken from 
him for Army use. Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed 
House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Caswell B. Derrick. (David C. Acuif, administrator.) (S. D. 
434-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports decedent loyal and that supplies worth 
$1,675 were taken from him for Army use. Claim apparently pend- 
ing in Fifty-sixth. Fifty-se\enth. and Fifty-eighth Congresses with- 
out action. Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 
Findings satisfactory on loyalty and property. 

Ja:^ies Watkins Fennell. (Belle F. Neill. administratrix.) (S. 
D. 355-59-2.) 'J^icker Act. Sent to court May 21, 1902. by Senate 
resolution. 

The facts are rather complicated, as to matter of title, and require 
a full statement in order to explain the unusual phraseology of this 
item of the bill. 

One item of claim is for cotton, not included in the proposed ap- 
propriation. This omission of the item is w^ithout prejudice to that 
item of claim. The committee deem it inadvisable to consider such 
items at present, however. 

• Full understandings of the findings of the court require very 
critical stud^• and considerable arithmetical calculation. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 29 

Supplies were taken from a widow and 10 children of James Wat- 
kins Fennell, then deceased. The widow and C of the children are 
found loyal ; 4 children found not loyal. 

The widow owned an imdivided one-third or ten-thirtieths interest 
in the supplies and each child owned an undivided two- thirtieths 
interest. 

Following- is a list of the owners, with action of the court noted as 
to loyalty : 

Matilda M. Fenuell, widow Loyal. 

Charity E. Henry Not loyad. 

.Tames Williams Fennell Not loyal. 

Tsham Watkins Fennell ^ Not loyal. 

CJatherine M. Esslinger Loyal. 

Mary Jane Graham Loyal. 

John H. Fennell Not loyal. 

Frank D. Fennell Loyal. 

Belle F. Neil Loyal. 

Caius G. Fennell , Loyal. 

Mattie M. Fenuell Loyal. 

Of course, the individual shares of the four disloyal heirs, in their 
own right, must be eliminated from present consideration. 

This fact was recognized b}^ the court, as it made its findings on 
property cover only the interests of the widow and six loyal children, 
in the sum of $1,330. The finding does not read as clearly as might) 
be desired, but careful examination shows that is what the court did. 

The widow has since died, and her 10 children became her heirs. 
Hence each child took in a i^epresentative capacity one-tenth of ten- 
thirtieths, or one-thirtieth of the total value of the supplies taken. 

In order to distribute the widow's share properly it becomes neces- 
sary to solve a problem to determine the total value of supplies 
taken. 

The sum of $1,330 allowed by the court covered the widow's ten- 
thirtieths, and the twelve-thirtieths of the six loyal children, or a 
total of twenty-two thirtieths. Hence, one-thirtieth is one twentv- 
second of $1,330, or $60,455, and thirty-thirtieths Avould be 30 times 
$G0.455, or $1,813.50. 

Each disloyal heir, simply as heir of his mother, would take the 
sum of $60.45. 

Each loyal heir would take in his own right two-thirtieths, or 
$120.91, and in his representative capacity, as heir of his mother, the 
further sum of $60.45, or a total of $181.36. 

Unless distribution is directed in such manner as will cause each 
loyal child to take $181.36, and each disloyal heir to take only 
$60.46, the local probate court would naturally distribute the sum 
appropriated in equal shares, which would not be consistent with 
the general intent of Congress in these claims. 

With these facts in mind it is proposed to distribute the total sum 
of $1,330, appropriated, as follows: 

1. Catherine M. Esslinger $183.36 

2. Marv Jane Graham 181.36 

3. Frank D. Fennell 181.36 

4. Belle F. Neil 181.36 

5. Caius G. Fennell 181.36 

6. Mattie M. Fennell 181.36 

7. Charity E. Henry 60.46 

8. James William Fennell 60.46 

9. Isham Watkins Fennell 60.46 

10. John H. Fennell 60.46 



30 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

(Fl•:u•ti()Il^^ of a cent ai-e added to the four smaller sums named.) 
Tliis claim jiassed the S-enate in the Sixtieth and Sixty-first Con- 
gresses and passed the IIousi' in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second 
Congi-esses. 

Richard Garner. (II. D. 934-GO-l.) BoAvman Act. Claim sent 
to court ^Nlay 19. 1906. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $42.') were taken for Army use. Claim was prosecuted before 
Southern Claims Commission, appearing- on page 88 of index of 
such claims. 

Passed House in Sixty- fii-st and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Peter H. Gold. (David Z. Gold, administrator.) (S. D. 615- 
61-2.) Tucker Act. Claim sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate 
resolution. Claimant is found loyal, and court finds that supplies 
worth $735 were taken for Army use. Claim was jjending in Fifty- 
seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses without action. This claim 
passed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William Cochrane. (Louisa Cochrane Gordon, daughter and 
heir.) (S. D. 67-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897, 
by Senate resolution. This case is somewhat unusual. From the 
findings of the court it appears that William Cochrane died before 
the war. leaving a widow and four children as his heirs. Prior to 
the taking of any supplies the interest of one daughter. Sophia, and 
of the widow had been set over to them. That left the remainder 
of the estate vested in three children, Hardin P. Cochrane, Louisa 
Cochrane, and William G. Cochrane. The two sons, Hardin P. 
Cochrane and William G. Cochrane, have been in effect found not 
loyal by the court. 

It is true that as to tlie girl, Louisa Cochrane (now Mrs. Gordon), 
the court did not make an explicit finding of loyalty, but apparently 
deemed that point disposed of by finding that she was a small girl 
only 14 years old at beginning of the war. The committee took that 
view of the case in the Sixty-second Congress, and the present com- 
mittee accepts the view as reasonable. 

From this young girl and her two brothers supplies were taken, as 
found by the court, worth $5,365 for Army use. She had one-third 
interest therein, amounting to $1,788, which is all that it is proposed 
to pay. 

The claim, in this sum. ])assed the House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Sa^scuel L. Gilbert. (W. H. Gilbert, administrator.) (S. D. 
248-62-2.) Tucker Act. Claim sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. The findings are explicit in showing claimant to 
have been loyal and that supplies worth $237 were taken from him for 
Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj'^-second Congresses. 

Green Guest. (J. H. E. Guest, administrator.) (S. D. 597-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution. The 
court finds claimant loyal and that sup])lies -worth $610 were taken 
from him for Army use. Claim does not appear on index of claims 
presented to Southern Claims Commission, but the court reports that 
an attorney who practiced before that commission has testified that 
the claim was placed in his hands about 1870 and that testimony was 



CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 31 

taken before a special commissioner, from which it may be reasonably 
assumed that the papers pertaining to the claim were lost by that 
commission. 

This claim passed the House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con- 
gresses. 

William T. Hamnek. (H. D. 405-59-2.) BoAvman Act. Claim 
.sent to court August 6, 1888. The court finds the claimant to have 
been loyal and that supplies worth $805 were taken from him for 
Army use. This claim was prosecuted before the Southern Claims 
Commission, appearing on page 101 of index of such claims. 

This claim passed the Senate in the Sixtieth Congress and passed 
the House in the Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Daaid B. Johnson. (C. J. McKee, administrator.) (H. D. 128- 
59-2.) BoAvman Act. Claim sent to court February 21, 1889. The 
court reports that claimant was loyal and that his property was 
taken under proper military orders, and that it was worth $3,900. 
The findings show the claim to be just; but in view of the statement 
of the court that it did not appear just what was done with the 
property after seizure, the committee has examined the files of the 
case from the Court of Claims and finds an official receipt for the sup- 
plies on file. The claim was prosecute-d before the Southern Claims 
Commission, as reported by the court. 

This claim passed the House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Con- 
gresses. 

John T. Jones. (Nannie H. Jones et al.. heirs.) (S. D. 136- 
CO-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution January 14, 
1905. It appears from the findings that John T. Jones died before 
the property in question was taken, leaving various heirs surviving 
him. Three of these heirs, Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones), Nannie 
H. Jones, and Mary E. Hereford (nee Jones), are found loyal be- 
cause of their tender years during the war. 

The court has expressly found the value of the interests of these 
loyal children in the supplies taken for Army use, fixing it at $1,200, 
and has further found the respective interests of the heirs of these 
three original owners so found loyal. The appropriation proposed 
follows the findings of the court in matter of distribution. It was 
once objected in another body that the loyalty of John T. Jones was 
not found by the court, but as he was dead when the property was 
taken for use of the Army, that is wholly immaterial. 

This claim passed the Senate in the Sixtieth and Sixty-first Con- 
gresses, and passed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

Meredith King. (J. P. McClendon, administrator.) (H. I). 380- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Claim sent to court January 15, 1901. The 
court finds claimant to have been loyal, and that Army supplies 
worth $700 were taken from him by proper authority. Claim was 
prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 
135 of index of such claims. 

This claim passed the Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed 
the House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 



32 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

John M. Lawsdn. (Mary E. lIayo()(,a. heir.) (H. I). -iO.veO-l.) 
Bowman Act. Claim sent to court March 27. 1000. Findings show 
loyalty of claimant and that supplies worth $1)20 Avere taken for 
Army use. The claim was prosecuted before the Southern Claims 
Commission, but was rejected then because claimant had taken bene- 
fit of bankruptcy law. Many claims were rejected by that commis- 
sion on the same frround. which is utterly untenable. 

The effect of bankruptcy of a claimant Avas considered by the 
Court of Claims in case of Campbell, 28 Court of Claims Eeport, 
512. The syllabus of that decision is as follows : 

Claims for proporty seized by the Army in the secedeil Stales duriiiii the Civil 
AVar do not pass In hankriiptcy. and may be prosecnted liy the orifjinal claimant. 

The various acts appropriating for ])ayment of such claims have 
contained a proviso to the effect : 

That in all oases where the original claimants wei-e adjndicated bankrupts 
payments shall be made to the next of kin instead of to the assignees in 
bankruptcy. 

This claim ]3asscd the Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed the 
House in the Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Daxikl Lyons. (Mollie I). Wilson et al., heirs.) (H. D. 1343- 
61-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 12, 1908. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that Army supplies worth $910 were taken. 
Claim was presented to Southern Claims Connnission. It passed 
the House in Sixty-second Congress. 

John W. McDaniel. (John C. McDaniel, administrator.) (H. D. 
206-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 15, 1890. Find- 
ings show claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $790 w'ere taken 
for Army use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Mantel. ( S. D. 185-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3. 1903, by Senate resolution. Findings show claimant was 
loyal and that Army supplies worth $5G7 Avere taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress, and passed House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Francis C. Martin. (LeA\ad F. Martin, administrator.) (H. D. 
550-00-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Findings 
shoAv loyalty and taking of supplies for Army use Avorth $925. Claim 
rejected by Southern Claims Commission because of bankruptcy of 
claimant. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Glorvinia Mason and John O. Mason. (J. G. Mason, administra- 
tor.) (H. p. 500-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 23, 
1889. Findings shoAv the tAvo decedents mentioned were loyal. Their 
coowner, Robert B. Mason, Avas found not loyal, and claim was dis- 
missed as to his interest in claim. The court explicitly reports that 
$3,990 represents only the interests of the tAvo loyal "owners in the 
supplies taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 33 

JSIarcus M. Massengale. (James M. Massengale, administrator.) 
( S. D. 183-61-2. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act 
March 2, 1891, claim having- been presented to Southern Claims Com- 
mission. It appearing that testimony had not been submitted to that 
commission, claim was later sent to court under Tucker Act on June 
30, 1908. by Senate resolution. Findings show claimant loyal and 
that supplies worth $615 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixt5-first Congress, and passed House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas J. Mitchell. (J. W. Mitchell, administrator.) (H. D. 
33-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 26, 1889. Findings 
show claimant loyal and that supplies worth $299 Avere taken for 
Army use. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, 
appearing on page 166 of index of sucli claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Margaret J. Parks. (S. D. 13-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 13, 1900, by Senate resolution. Findings show claimant's loy- 
alty and taking of supplies for Army use worth $1,068. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixty- 
second Congi-ess. 

Jacob A. Paulk. (S. D. 568-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jonathan Paltlk. (Jacob A. Paulk, administrator.) (S. D. 
568-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$1,080 were taken from him for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Augustus X. Perkins. (Louisa Perkins, administratrix.) (S.D. 
224-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 7, 1901, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$1,605 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Absalom T. Phillips. (J. W. Phillips, administrator.) (H. D. 
54-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1906. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $202 were taken for 
Army use. Claim was prosecutecl before Southern Claims Commis- 
sion, as mentioned in statement of case, and appears on page 186 of 
index of such claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

George Orville Ragland. (Edward M. Ragland et al.) (S. D. 
299-61-2.) Tucker Act. The heirs of George Orville Ragland are 
Edward M. Ragland, Mrs. Ursula Ragland Erskine, and Edward M. 
Ragland. as administrator of John D. Ragland. Sent to court March 
2, 1907. by Senate resolution. Supplies were taken from three chil- 
dren of George O. Ragland, then deceased. The court finds these 
three children to have been loyal on account of their tender years 

19S55— H. Rept. 97, C3-2 3 



34 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX A!^D TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

duriTio- ^val^ and that supplies worth $5,510 were taken from them for 
Army use. 

Passed House in Sixtj'-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John P. Kobersox. (J. B. Roberson. administrator.) (H. D. 
308-59-2.) Tuelver Act. Sent to court March 18, 1903, by House 
resohition. The court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$1,230 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Oscar A. Rolfe. (Charles O. Rolfe, administrator.) (H. D. 228- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 20, 1888. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,980 were taken from him 
for Army use. AVas prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, 
appearing on page 202 of index of such claims. 

Passed House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel F. Ryan. (S. D. 103-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3, 1903. by Senate resolution. While the findings are in great 
detail, the essential facts are that Samuel F. Ryan was 8 years old 
Avhen certain Army supplies Avere taken, and is found loyal because 
of tender years; and that he was the equitable owner of five-sixths 
interest in the supplies taken ; that his said five-sixths interest was 
worth $2,712. Ryan's father presented the claim in first place to 
Southern Claims Commission in his own name, but it was rejected. 
The sum allowed by the court covers only the interest of this claim- 
ant in the property taken. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed 
House in Sixty -first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James M. Thomason. (H. D. 849-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court August 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies worth $085 Avere taken for Army use. Claim prosecuted be- 
fore Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 233 of index 
of such claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-Second Congresses. 

Daniel Thompson. (Shelby Grisham. administrator.) (H. D. 
794-60-1.) Bowmian Act. Sent to court May 14, 1902. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $240 were taken for Army 
use. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, appear- 
ing on page 234 of index of such claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

MosES K. Wheat. (Cecilia R. A. Wheat, executrix.) (H. D. 
537-60-1.) Bowman Act Sent to court April 20, 1888. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $4,890 were taken for 
Army use. Claim prosecuted before Southern Claims Commission, 
appearing on page 250 of index of such claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas Williams. (Richard Garner, administrator.) (H. D. 
1200-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 35 

finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $295 were taken for 
Army use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Commission, ap- 
pearing on page 254 of index of such claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Athens, Ala. (S. D. 92- 
61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loj^al and that its house of worship was 
used and occupied by United States forces, under proper authority, 
and that reasonable value of such use and occupation, with incidental 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, amount to $1,440. 

Claim first presented to Quartermaster General in 1865. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress, and passed House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cumberland PRESBri'ERiAN Church, Bellefonte, Ala. (S. D. 
256-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court findings show claimant's church was torn down 
by military forces, under proper authority, and materials used for 
military purposes, and that the value of property taken was $750; 
also that claimant, as a church, remained loyal. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Bellefonte, Ala. (S. D. 
269-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that claimant, as an organization, remained 
loyal, and that United States forces, by proper authority, tore down 
its church and used same to build quarters; that the building was 
reasonably worth $380. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-Second Congress. 

Masonic lodge, Bexar, Ala. (S. D. 695-60-2.) Tucker Act, 
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal. On property the findings are that the lodge owned 
a two-story frame building worth $600, and that: 

In the spring of 1863 said building, with contents, while in the occupation 
of the United States military forces, was destroyed by fire, the evidence failing 
to disclose whether the fire was accidental or otherwise. 

The question of whether the lodge should be paid for its building 
under the circumstances found is deemed one not entirely free of 
doubt. However, it would appear unreasonable to demand proof 
of the claimant as to precisely the manner in which the fire started, 
when it is found that the building was at the time in possession of 
the troops. Under such conditions neither members nor officers of 
the lodge would have been permitted to remain in the building for 
the purpose of watching the troops. All that the lodge could 
prove, in the very nature of things, are the facts found by the court. 

While it is true that a lessee of a building is not responsible for 
loss of the building by fire, if he exercises reasonable care, it would 
seem that where the Government seizes possession of a building, 
it is under at least a moral duty to return the building in as good 
condition as it w^as in when seized. It is upon that theory that the 
committee has included numerous claims of churches and other 
organizations, as well as some of individuals, covering rental value 
of buildings, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear. 



36 CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAX AI^D TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

In view of the reported faet^. it is deemed but just and fair that 
this ]\Iasonic lodge be paid the $600 representino- tlie vahie of its 
bnikling. which was evidently burned as the direct result of its being 
occupied by the troops. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress, 

Decatur Lodge, Xo. 52, I. O. O. F., Decatur. Au\. (S. D. 
220-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 23, 1002. l>y Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant, as an organization, was loyal; and 
that its brick lodge building Avas torn down by United States forces 
and materials used for military purposes; that value of building w^as 
$6,000. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

First BAP-nsT Church. Decatxr. Ala. (S. D. 227-01-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 18. 1006, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; and that United States forces tore down its church 
for military purposes: that the building was worth $2,200. 

Passed Ilouse in Sixty-second Congress. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South. Decatur. Ala. (S. D. 
307-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1006, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: and that Ignited States forces. 
by proper authority, tore down its buildings, worth $1,850. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Presbyterian Church, Decatur, Ala. (S. D. 142-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 7, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal, as an organization; that United States forces, under 
pro]:)er authority, tore down its building and used materials for 
making quarters; that building was reasonably worth $3,000. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Missionary Baptist CiirRcii. Gravelly Springs, Ala. (S. D. 
80-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. Court finds 
claimant loyal; and that United States forces, under proper au- 
thority, tore down its building and used same in building winter 
quarters; that building was worth $725. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church (Colored), Huntsville, 
Ala. (S. D. 284-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, 
by Senate resolution. The court finds that claimant Avas loyal and 
that United States forces, by proper authority, tore down its church 
and used materials for making quarters; that the building was w^orth 
$220; also that the claim Avas filed Avith Quartermaster General in 
1866 and dismissed for Avant of jurisdiction. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

]\rETHODiST Episcopal Church South, Huntsville, Ala. (S. D. 
131-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1006, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; that United States troops 
occupied the church building and that "during such occupation the 
building was, by some means not explained to the court, set on fire 
and Avas consumed, and thereby became a total loss." Building 
worth $7,500. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^, ETC. 37 

This claim in its material features is practically identical with the 
claim of the Masonic Lodge of Bexar. Ala., above considered. As 
stated in considering that claim it would seem the moral duty of the 
Goverlmient wdien it occupies such buildings to surrender them in as 
good condition as they were in when possession Avas taken, or to 
recompense the owners for losses arising from failure to do so. 

For this reason this claim is here included. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

Missionary Baptist Church, Huntsville, Ala., successor to 
Primitive Baptist Church. (S. D. 23G-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds that the 
Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville was loyal ; that the Mis- 
sionary Baptist Church is successor to the original church ; that 
United States forces took possession of the church and used and occu- 
pied it; that reasonable worth of such use and occupation, with inci- 
dental damapes other than ordinary wear and tear, amount to $1,760. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses and passed 
House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Pri^fitive Baptist Church (Colored), Huntsville, Ala. (S. D. 
79-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces 
tore down its church and used the materials, the building being worth 
$909. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress and passed House in Sixty- 
second Congress. 

Oak Grove Methodist Church South, Jackson County, Ala. 
(S. D. 213-01-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States 
forces, under proper authority, tore down its church and used mate- 
rials for building bridges; that the reasonable value of the bu.ilding 
was $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress and passed House in Sixty- 
second Congress. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Larkinsville, Ala. (S. D. 
355-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; also that United States 
forces, by proper authority, used the church as a stable and later 
tore the church down and used materials in erection of quarters; that 
reasonable value of occupation and of the building was $525. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress and passed House in Sixty- 
second Congress. 

Medical College of ALABA:srA, Mobile. (S. D. 311-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 13, 1908, by Senate resolution. 
The court finds claimant, as an institution, remained loj'^al; that 
after the close of the Avar the GoAernment took possession of premises 
of claimant and used and occupied same about a year and 10 months; 
that the reasonable rental was $3,300 and the incidental damage, in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, Avas $900. making a total of $4,200. 

Passed the House for $4,200 in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con- 
gresses and passed Senate to extent of $3,300 in Sixty-second Con- 
gress. 



38 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

• 

BoLRAR Lodge, Xo. 127. F. A. A. M., Stevenson, Ala. (S. D. 
112-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court :Marcli 3, 1903, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States mili- 
tary forces tore down the buildinfr of the lodge and used materials, 
the building being of reasonable value of $1,150. 

Pased Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed 
House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Missionary Baptist Church of Waterloo, Ala. (S. D. 40-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution April 27, 1904. 
Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States military forces, 
under proi)er authority-, removed its building and used materials 
for Army use, the building being worth $615. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first Congresses, and passed 
House in Sixty-second Congress. 

ARKANSAS. 

Eliza Ann Ashcraft. (N. B. Ashcraft, administrator.) (H. D. 
541_62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 17, 1910, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal : Army supplies taken worth 
$400. Court accompanies findiniis with the " conclusion " required 
by act of June 25. 1910 (36 Stat.l 837). that "the claim herein is an 
equitable one in the sense that tlie Ignited States received the benefit 
of the supplies for Avhich claim is made." Claim certified too late for 
inclusion in any former bills. 

John W. Bean. (H. D. 351-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
October 31. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal, and supplies worth 
$290 taken for Army use. Presented to Southern Claims Commis- 
sion, and appears on page 20 of index of such claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph Bean. (Joseph X. Bean, administrator.) (H. D. 
488-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 2, 1891. Court finds 
claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $648 were taken for Army 
use. Presented to Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 
20 of index of such claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and House in Sixtieth. Sixty- 
first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Chester Bethel. (H. D. 706-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
by House resolution ]\Iarch 7. 190S. Court finds claimant loyal, and 
that supplies worth $300 were taken for Army use. 

l*assed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Brewer. (Sarah Brewer, widow and sole heir.) (H. D. 
307-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court finds 
claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $232 were taken for Army 
use: also that Sarah Brewer is Avidow and sole heir. Was presented 
to Southern Claims Commission, appearing on page 32 of index 
thereof. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS; ETC. 39 

James E. Caldavell. (H. D: :>1 6-02-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 7, 1908, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; 
supplies worth $385 taken for Army use. The conclusion of the 
court is that the claim is an ecjuitable one. Claim certified too late 
for inclusion in former bills. 

Isaac S. Conner. (T. F. Conner, administrator.) (H. D. 448- 
fi2-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1886. Court finds 
claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $575 Avere taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Asa Crow. (William E. Floyd, administrator.) S. D. 642-60-2.) 
Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court by House under Bowman Act 
April 22. 1890, in name of Mary Crow, widow of Asa Crow, who also 
presented claim to Southern Claims Commission in her own name. 
Was later sent to court by Senate resolution March 2, 1903, evidently 
to confer jurisdiction to consider claim in name of Asa Crow, Court 
finds claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $715 were taken for 
Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first Congress, and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John N. Curtis. (Isaiah L. Blair, administrator.) (H. D. 231- 
61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 27, 1890. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $1,720 AA'ere taken from him 
by proper authority. Claim is stated to haA^e been filed before South- 
ern Claims Commission, and must haAe been so filed in order to be 
tried under BoAAinan Act. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Curtis & Austin. (Claim of former firm, now represented by 
Isaiah L. Blair, administrator of John N. Curtis, and by Mary J. 
Louden, daughter and heir of Thomas Austin.) (H. D. 245-61-2.) 
BoAvman Act. Sent to court July 17. 1890. Court finds both mem- 
bers of firm were loyal and that supplies Avorth $775 were taken by 
proper authority. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel B. Derreberry. (J. M. Derreberrv, administrator.) (H. 
D. 504-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $715 AYere taken for 
Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Laura J. Dills. (J. W. AVallace. executor.) (S. D. 329-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1905, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal, because of her tender years during war. 
It is stated in j^etition that she AA^as only 16 Avhen AYar ended. It is 
forther fomid that supplies AA^ere taken from this girl and her co- 
owners by proper authoritA' and that her interest in same was Avorth 
$2,945. 

iPassed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Edmund F. Duke. (J. H. Duke, administrator.) (H. D. 512- 
60-1.) BoAvman Ar-t. Sent to court March 13, 1894. Court finds 



40 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS^ EIC. 

claimnnt loyal and supplies Avorth :?3.7Uw taken from liini b}' proper 
authority. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and passed House in Sixtieth. Sixty- 
first, and Sixty-second Coni>resses. 

Wiixia:m H. Engles. (H. D. 70l--:)i:)-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 2. 1897. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies worth $1,510 were taken for Arm}^ use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Isaac T. P^ppler. (Sam Edmondson. administrator.) (H. D. 
352-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court :March 4, 1902. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,205 Avere taken for Army 
use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Thaddeus N. Ferkell. (Mattie U. Bovkin. Thaddeus C Ferrell, 
and Lulu D. Meriwether, heirs.) (S. D. 3-1-1-61-2.) ^ Tucker Act. 
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds, in 
effect, that the three claimants named Avere of tender years during 
war and therefore were loyal; that supplies worth $5,119 Avere taken 
from them for Army use; that claim was not presented to Southern 
Claims Commission because claimants Avere all minors during exist- 
ence of the commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuee H. FiTZHUGii. (Samuel E. Fitzhugh, administrator.) 
(H. I). 797-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 20. 1887. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies AAorth $772 Avere taken 
for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John (t. Freeman. (Mrs. A. M. McFarlane, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 216-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1911, 
by Senate resolution. Claim for part of propert}^ presented to 
Southern Claims Commission: claim first sent to court under Bow- 
man Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $2,991 
were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

John (iibson. (John H. Brysoii, administrator.) (H. D. 366- 
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 10, 1909. Presented to 
Southern Claims Commission. Court finds claimant loyal and that 
supplies Avorth $1.()()0 AA'ere taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Joel Harrell. (Dan Thomason. administrator.) (H, D. 795- 
60-1.) BoAA'inan Act. Sent to court January 9, 1907. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $1,190 AAcre taken for Army 
use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martha Harrison and Oliver P. Lister. (William A. Bethel, 
administrator of Martha Harrison.) ( H. D. 723-59-1.) Bowman 
Act. Sent to court February 16. 1892. Found page 104 of index of 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 41 

claims presented to Southern Claims Commission, ('ourt finds claim- 
ants loyal and that supplies worth $399 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Richard Higgins. (Joel G. Higgins, administrator.) S. D. 164- 
56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution July 17, 
1897. Material facts found by court are as follows : 

Eichard Higgins died in 1862 and before taking of property in 
question. He left a widow, Elizabeth Higgins, and three small 
children surviving him, who became owners of the property. These 
three small children were .Joel G. Higgins, Brand Higgins, and An- 
nie G. Higgins. The children are found loyal. The widow is not 
found loyal. 

The court finds that supplies worth $11,954 were taken from the 
four owners for Army use. The share owned by Mrs. Higgins can 
not be paid for, she being found not loyal. The other three-fourths 
interests, amounting to $8,965, should be paid for, however. 

After close of war the daughter. Annie G. Higgins. died, and 
under Arkansas law her mother became her heir. Hence Mrs. Higgins 
should receive, in her representative capacity, the share of her daugh- 
ter. In order that proper distribution of the proposed appropriation 
may be made, the committee suggests that the appropriation run as 
follows : 

To Joel G. Hig,irius. administrator of estate of Richard Higsiiis, deceased, 
$8,965, to be distributed as follo^A's : In equal parts to Mrs. Elizabeth Higgins 
(as heir of Annie G. Higgins. deceased), to Joel G. Higgins, and to Brand 
Higgins. in full payment for stores and supplies. 

The proposed appropriation covers only the part of the claim al- 
lowed for Army stores and supplies, the committee not having in- 
cluded the item of cotton, amounting to $5,494.40. This action is, 
of course, without prejudice to further consideration of the cotton 
item. 

Passed the House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Ira M. Lamb and Ukhard D. Lamb. (Richard D. Lamb, ad- 
ministrator.) (H. D. 844-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
June 5. 1890. Appears on page 138 of index of Southern Claims 
Commission. Court finds Ira M. Lamb, jr., and Richard D. Lamb 
loyal, account tender years, during war; that their mother and co- 
owner was not loyal ; that supplies worth $3,250 were taken from the 
mother and two sons for Amny use ; and allows two-thirds that sum, 
or $2,166.67, on shares of the two sons. Appropriation should be 
made to Richard D. Lamb, in his own right, and also to him as ad- 
ministrator of his brother. Ira M. Lamb, jr.. and the language of 
appropriation is suggested as follows: 

To liiohard D. Lamb, hi his own right, and to Richard D. Lamb, as admin- 
istrator of estate of Ira M. Lamb, jr., in equal sharesj. $2,166.07, as heirs of 
Ira M. Lamb, deceased, late of Phillips County. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mary Lefevre. (Union Trust Co., administrator.) (H. D. 350- 
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4. 1904. Appears page 
142 of index of claims before Southern Claims Commission. Court 



42 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 

finds' claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $5,842 were taken for 
Army use. 

PaWd Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John B. Luttrell. (H. D. 353-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 14, 1902. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $480 Avere taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Ben Mahuren. (S. D. 566-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
May 22. 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies Avorth $550 taken for Army use. Claimant first tried 
to present claim in 1870. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eleanor Maxavell. (H. D. 1316-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court April 27, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $3,064 taken for Armj^ use. Appears page 161 of index of 
claims before Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry B. Mullins (E. M. Carl-Lee, administrator) and Sue F. 
Carl-Lee and Nancy L. Frazier. (S. D. 545-61-2.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. It appears that 
Alfred Mullins died in 1860, leaA'ing seAeral heirs, including Henry 
B. Mullins. Sue F. Carl-Lee, and NancA^ L. Frazier, all then of ten- 
der years. The three children mentioned are found loyal, and it is 
also found that supplies were taken from them and their cooAvners 
for Army use, and that their share in said supplies were worth 
$1,995. From the statement of case it appears that two of the chil- 
dren mentioned AA-ere minors during period (Mar. 3, 1871-Mar. 3, 
1873) during AAhich claim might have been presented to Southern 
Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin Pigman. (Jonathan Pigman, executor.) (S. D. 350- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 19, 1902, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $1,570 
taken for Army use. 

Burns Polk. Sr. (Maria Polk Johnston. James Polk, and Burns 
Polk, jr., heirs.) (H. D. 713-59-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court 
April 23. 1890. Court finds claimant loyal, it appearing that he was 
a slave till freed; that supi)lies Avorth $300 Avere taken for Army use. 
Claim appears page 189 of index of claims filed with claims commis- 
sion. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Manurvia J. Spake (formerly Ross). (H. D. 354-59-1.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal 
and that supplies Avorth $780 taken for Army use. Appears page 
220 index of claims filed Avith claims commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 43 

William B. Rutherford. (H. D. 349-59-1.) Bowman Act. 
Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal and that 
supplies worth $890 taken for Army use. Appears page 205 of index 
of claims filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William T. Stone. (John T. Sifford, executor.) (H. D. 364- 
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 27, 1887. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,640 were taken for 
Army use. Appears page 226 of index of claims filed with Claims 
Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Sarah Winter. (S. D. 199-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies worth $1,380 were taken by proper authority. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress and House in Sixty-second 
Congress. 

Mary E. Wycough. (Lillie L. Penrod, sole heir.) (S. D. 220- 
61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that her interest in supplies 
taken from her and her coowners for Army use amounts to $700; 
that claim was filed with Claims Commission ; that Lillie L. Penrod 
is sole heir. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Joseph C. Zillah. (John Zillah and Mary T. Goss. sole heirs.) 
(H. D. 695-60-1). Bowman Act. Sent to "court April 10. 1906. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $240 were taken 
for Army use; also that John Zillah and Mary T. Goss are sole heirs. 
Appears page 262 of index of claims filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Church, near old Austin, Lonoke County. Ark. 
(S. D. 354-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. Court 
finds claimant loyal; that United States forces, by proper authority, 
tore down church building and used materials in constructing quar- 
ters for troops ; that value of property was $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Clarksville, Ark. (S. D. 
16-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces took 
possession of two churches and used them as commissary storehouses; 
that on approach of Confederate forces the United States forces 
burned the buildings to prevent the supplies therein from being cap- 
tured by Confederates ; that the rental of the buildingb during period 
of occupancy was worth $400 ; that the value of buildings destrovecl 
was $4,000. ^ • 

In preparation of this bill, the committee has eliminated items of 
pure destruction and for that reason includes only the $400 item of 



44 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

rent, and in order that the other item of the chiim may not be preju- 
diced from further consideration, su<igests appropriation as follows: 

To the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarlvsville, iu 
full coiupeusation for rent of buildings during Civil War. $400. 

As to this portion of claim, it passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty- 
first Conofresses and House in Sixty-second Congress. It passed 
Senate in Sixty-second Congress as to other part, i. e., $4,000. but not 
as to rent item. 

Baptist Chirch of Dardanelle. Akk. (S. D. 286-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 12, 1908. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal: and that troops, by proper authority, 
tore down most of church, so that remainder fell down: that mate- 
rials were used for military purposes: that building and furnishings 
were worth $1,190. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church, of Helena, Ark. ( S. D. 129-59-2. ) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1905. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that from about July 12, 1862, till about July 1. 1865, United States 
forces used and occupied church building for militarj^ purposes; that 
reasonable rental value of the premises and incidental damages 
amount to $1,790. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Ark. (S. D. 229- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 190-t, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces, by 
proper authority, used and occupied building for 18 months; that 
rental value during that period, with amount necessary to repair 
building, is $1,900. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Pleasant Hill Baptist Church, Lonoke County, Ark. (H. D. 
237-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January 17, 1910, by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that United States forces, 
by proper authority, tore down church building and used the mate- 
rials for barracks ; that the building Avas worth $525. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Mount Comfort, Ark. (S. 
D. 253-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under Bowman Act 
Marcli 2, 1891 : later sent under Tucker Act, by Senate resolution, 
March 3, 1903. Court finds claimant loyal : that buildings of claim- 
ant, v.orth $900, were torn down by military forces, under proper 
authority, and materials used for making quarters. 

Passed both Senate and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con- 
gresses. 

First Baptist Church, Pine Bluff, Ark. (S. D. 42-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces, by proper au- 
thority, used and occupied the church, and that the reasonable rental 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 45 

value during: that period of use and amount necessary to restore 
building- aggreg'ate $1,960. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Pike Bluff. Akk. (H. D. 
782-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906. by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces, by 
proper authority, used and occupied church building as storehouse 
for supplies and incidentally damaged same; that the reasonable 
rental, with damages in excess of wear and tear, amount to $1,300. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

CALIFORNIA. 

Joseph M. Clark. (H. D. 241-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for diiference in pay, $184.12. 

Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

WiLFOKD CuBBAGE. (H. D. 394-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $137.42. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Richard N. Doyle. (H. D. 272-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's 
claim for diiference in pay, $397.97. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andrew J. Guilford. (H. D. 117-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $547.25. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

David H. Hilderbrand. (H. D. 841-59-1.) Bowman Act. Claim 
first sent to court December 22, 1884, under Bowman Act; claimant 
found loyal under that reference in 1885; findings were made on 
property in 1886, which findings were not sufficiently explicit to se- 
cure favorable action upon claim. January 23, 1906, claim again re- 
ferred to court under Bowman Act. The later findings are explicit 
in stating that supplies were taken for use of Army by proper au- 
thority of the value of $480. These later findings show everything 
required as a condition to payment. Claim was presented to Southern 
Claims Commission, appearing on page 111 of index of such claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Julia H. Castle. (Daughter of John H. Howe.) (H. D. 258- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $575.93. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

COLORADO. 

Lewis B. Brasher. (H. D. 1491-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent court 
February 11, 1908. The facts of this claim, as reported by the court, 
are peculiar. In October, 1864, claimant was designated by the 
colonel of the Fifty- fourth Kentucky Mounted Infantry as acting 



46 (Jlaims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 

regimental quartermaster, and later as acting assistant brigade 
quartermabtor. He filled these positions, performing the duties of 
the positions from October 19, 1864, till January 31, 1865. 

The court reports that the colonel who designated claimant to per- 
form the duties of these positions was without authority, either from 
the United States Government or from the State of Kentucky, to 
make an}^ such appointment. Claimant was never mustered into the 
military service during this period. 

Had he been duly commissioned and mustered in the positions 
mentioned he would have drawn $372.83. 

The conditions reported evidently arose from the calling into serv- 
ice volunteer troops, officers of whom acted without a loiowledge of 
military laws or procedure. It seems to be a fact that claimant per- 
formed the duties mentioned, and it would follow that the United 
States received the benefits thereof. While it is well settled, as a 
principle of commercial law, that one who volunteers his services to 
anotlier, without request, can recover nothing therefor, yet in this 
case it would seem that claimant served under what may be termed 
color of title to the positions the duties of which he performed. 
Under all these facts it is believed right that the sum mentioned be 
paid this claimant. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Jesse W. Coleman. (H. D. 302-59-1) . Tucker Act. Sent to court 
February 27, 1901, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. 
As to the matter of property the findings may be properly criticized 
as not sufficiently explicit. However, they must be read in connec- 
tion with the allegations of the petition, and when so read it appears 
with reasonable certainty that Army supplies were taken from this 
man which were reasonably worth $675. The claim as presented in- 
ducted other items which were in effect disallowed by the court. It 
is believed that the findings, fairly construed, show this man to be 
entitled to $675. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress, and passed House in Sixty-sec- 
ond Congress. 

James W. Hanna. (H. D. 585-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $148.34. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William B. Palmer. (H. D. 264-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $360.65. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

George T. Shackelford. (H. D. 266-60-1.) Bowman Act. 
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $43.80. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

CONNECTICUT. 

James F. Brown. (H. D. 255-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $262.98. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 47 

James E. Hubbell. (E. W. and K. H. Hubbell, executors.) 
(H. D. 243-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in 
pay, $109.27. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charles H. Simmons. (H. D. 464-.59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $39.94. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

Harrison L. Deam. (H. D. 252-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $115.74. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John T. Deweese. (Ella L. Deweese, widow.) (H. D. 290-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $155.09. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas Fahey. (H. D. 325-62-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first 
sent to court June 21, 1910, by Senate resolution; later sent to court 
February 3, 1911, by House resolution, and tried under later reference. 
Court finds claimant loyal and further finds that he was owner of 
a leasehold on premises situated near end of Long Bridge, on Vir- 
ginia side of Potomac Kiver ; that United States forces by proper 
authority used and occupied the premises and later tore down the 
buildings and used the materials therein; that the reasonable rental 
value together with value of improvements torn down amount to 
$1,840. The claimant alleges that he placed the improvements upon 
the land. The court expressly reports that as early as 1865 claim was 
presented to Quartermaster General for rent and value of buildings, 
which claim was rejected for want of jurisdiction; that a claim was 
later presented to the Southern Claims Commission for value of 
lumber taken from buildings, but that claim was rejected for lack 
of jurisdiction. 

This claim was tried by the court subsequent to the approval of 
the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stats., 837), and therefore the findings 
are accompanied by the following : 

CONCLUSION. 

Upon the foregoing findings of fact tlie court concludes that the claim herein 
is an equitable one in the sense thnt the United States received the benefit of 
. the use of the property and buildings for which claim is made. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Gottlieb C. Grammer. (Heber L. Thornton and Gravson L. 
Thornton, trustees.) (S. D. 303-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
May 26, 1900, by Senate resolution. It appears that Gottlieb C. 
Grammer died in the District of Columbia in 1858: that trustees 
were appointed to execute certain trusts erected by his will; that 
they were in possession of the Grammer farm, situate in the Dis- 



48 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

trict, in 1862; that in that year United States military forces cut 
from the farm timber Avorth $2,340. 

The trustees in possession of the premises at that time were 
Christopher Grammer and William B. Todd, who are found by the 
court to have been loyal. It appears that effort Avas made during 
the war by the trustees to secure consideration of the claim, but 
Avithout results. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin F. Hasson. (H. D. 302-00-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $305.39. 

Elizabeth Thomas. (S. D. 53-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 27, 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds Elizabeth Thomas, 
a resident of the District of Columbia. AA'as loyal. It appears that 
the claimant AA'ith her brother. George Proctor, and her sister, Sarah 
Catherine Diggs, oAvned a small farm near BrightAA^ood, D. C. ; that 
United States troops occupied the land and tore doAvn A'arious build- 
ings thereon; also that they cut doAvn an orchard and greatly dam- 
aged the premises. The court ex])ressly refuses to make any allow- 
ance for destruction or damages arising from military necessity, but 
restricts its alloAAance to a reasonable rental A^alue of the land and 
for the personal property taken for use of the Army during the 
occupancy. alloAA'ing $1,835 therefor. It appears that the claimant 
can scarcely read and can not AArite: that she put the claim in the 
hands of a Federal captain. Avho stated he Avould look after it, but 
thereafter died ; that the papers AAcre in his hands and claimant 
could not secure them. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

FLORIDA. 

IsADORE A'ON Balsan. (Robert A-on Balsan. et al.) (S. D. 622- 
60-2.) Tucker xVct. Claim first sent to court February 10, 1886, 
under Bowman Act, but then disalloAAed because of lack of certain 
proofs; later sent to court June 30. 1902, by Senate resolution under 
Tucker Act in the name of estate of Henry A'on Balsan; tried as 
Case Xo. 10929. Congressional, and adA'ersely decided on grounds 
that it did not appear that Henry A'on Balsan was owner of property 
in question. Was again referred to court June 27. 1906, b}^ Senate 
resolution in name of present claimants. 

The court finds that Eobert von Balsan, Rinaldo von Balsan, Isa- 
dore von Balsan, and their mother. Caroline von Balsan, Avere loyal; 
that military forces by proper authority took from them for use of 
Army supplies worth $1,280. Court further reports presentation of 
claim to Southern Claims Commission in 1872 in name of Henry von 
Balsan. The firfdings of the court make it plain that the claim is just 
and that previous rejection Avas because claim had been presented in 
the Avrong name. It is a matter of fair inference that Henry von 
Balsan, in Avhose name claim Avas first presented, was the husband of 
Caroline von Balsan and the father of the other claimants. 

Passed Senate in Sixt3^-first and Plouse in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 49 

Joseph D. Hazzard. (H. D. 2T7-<:>0-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $106.21. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Manette Marsons. (Telesfor D. Qnigles, administrator.) (H. D. 
38-58-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21. 1899, by House 
resolution. Court finds that Manette Marsons was loyal and that 
military forces took supplies from her for use of Army reasonably 
worth $4,300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress and House in Sixtieth, Sixty- 
first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eliza Ann Turner, Richard H. Turner, in his oavn right, and 
AS Administrator or Eliza Turner. (S. D. 254-60-1.) Court finds 
that Eliza Turner, the decedent, and Richard H. Turner and Eliza 
Ann Turner were loyal ; that supplies worth $2,130 were taken from 
them for Army use by proper authority. No allowance is made for 
anything but Army supplies. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church or Jacksonville, Fla. (S. D, 236-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States military forces 
used and occupied church premises for hospital and camping pur- 
poses and damaged same; that reasonable value of use and occupa- 
tion, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
amount to $1,170. Being a recent finding, the court reports its con- 
clusion that the claim is an equitable one in the sense that the United 
States received the benefit of the use of the property for which claim 
is made. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

GEORGIA. 

July Anderson. (July Anderson, jr.. administrator.) (H. D. 
700-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 16, 1906. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies w^orth $280 were taken by proper 
authority for Army use. This claim was before Southern Claims Com- 
mission, appearing on page 11 of index of such claims, though by 
clerical error it is indexed under the name of Judy Anderson. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Reddick Aycock. (G. W. Aycock, administrator.) (H. D. 501- 
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 27, 1888. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $515 were taken for Army 
use. Claim appears on page 14 of index of claims filed with Claims 
Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Caldwell C. Baggs, William A. Baggs, and Mary A. Baggs 
Latham. (S. D. 242-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 
1909, by Sena;te resolution. This claim is for the undivided interest 
of three young children in property taken after the death of their 

19S55— H. Rept. 97, 63-2 i 



50 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

* • 

father. From the statement of case it appears that the eldest of 
these three children was born in 1850. another in 1856. and another 
in 1864. No claim is made and no allowance made for the interests 
of their coheirs or coowners. The court finds that these three claim- 
ants were loyal because of their tender years and that supplies were 
taken in which the interest of each of them amounted to $220, or, in 
all, $660 for the three claimants. It is also reported that their 
mother, Mrs. Mary E. Baggs, made claim to the Southern Claims 
Commission in her own name, but the claim w'as then rejected; also 
that the claim was first sent to court under Bowman Act on May 19, 
1906, in name of Mrs. Baggs, mother of present claimants. The 
court accompanies its finding with a favorable conclusion that the 
claim is an equitable one. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Larkin Clark. (James F. Hicks, administrator.) (H. D. 691- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31. 1906, by House reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal and that Army supplies worth 
$165 were taken by proper authority; also that claim was presented 
to Claims Commission in 1871 and disallowed for want of sufficient 
proof. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

WiLLLVM CouRSEY. (Mrs. M. E. Arrowood, administratrix.) 
(H. D. 38-61-1.) Bowman Act. Court finds that decedent, Wil- 
liam Coursey, who owned the property when it was taken, was loyal ; 
that claims were previously presented by two individual heirs of 
William Coursey, each claiming one-half: that one heir, Lloyd 
Coursey, was found loyal and was paid $617 on his share of the 
claim; that the other heir, Daniel Course}'', could not establish his 
ow^n loyalty, although the loyalty of his decedent was proven and 
conceded. The present claim is presented by the administratrix of the 
original decedent to recover the other half of the claim, i. e., $617. 

As said William Coursey, the owner of the property at the time of 
taking, has been adjudged loyal, both by the Claims Commission and 
by the Court of Claims, it is obvious that the remaining $617 should 
be paid to his administratrix. Save under a mistaken construction 
of law by the Claims Commission, the Government has not required 
proof of loyalty of beneficiaries of an estate where it appears that 
the decedent who owned the property at the time of taking was loyal. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

George Creel. (H. D. 387-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
July 10, 1888. Court finds claimant loj^al and that supplies worth 
$865 were taken for Army use by proper authority. It appears that 
the claim was presented to Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Levi Crow. (Fannie Crow, administratrix.) (H. D. 200-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $710 were taken for Army use. Claim 
appears on page 60 of index of claims filed with Claims Commis- 
sion. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 51 

Berryman S. Dempsey. (Daniel M. Dempsey, administrator.) 
(H. D. 894-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 28, 1896. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $857 were taken 
for Army use. Claim appears on page 66 of Claims Commission 
index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

W. S. Fears. (N. C. Fears, administrator.) (H. D. 668-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that Army supplies worth $1,765 were 
taken by proper authority. 

The item of cotton which was burned is ignored, and appropria- 
tion recommended only for $1,765 to cover Army supplies. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

David Floyd. (Miles L. Floyd, administrator.) (H. D. 530-61-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 29, 1906. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use. Claim 
filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Plymouth Frazier, Jr. (H. D. 748-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court June 16, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $122 were taken for Army use. Claim appears on page 85 
of Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Albert Godbee. (H. B. Godbee, son and heir.) (H. D. 696-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$430 were taken for Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commis- 
sion. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Robert H. Green. (A. G. McDonald, administrator.) (H. D. 
846-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1898. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $595 were taken for 
Army use. Claim appears on page 96 of index of claims filed with 
Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congre'sses. 

Abraham Greeson. (H. D. 440-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 30, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $405 were taken for Army use. Claim appears on page 96 of 
index of claims filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Archibald P. Griggs. (Archibald A. Griggs, administrator.) 
(S. D. 237-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $760 were taken for Army use. Court further reports that 
the decedent was an invalid during time allowed for presenting 
claims to Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 



52 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

Sarah Hays. (J. M. Ballew. administrator.) (H. D. 362-62-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 31, 1906. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $330 taken for Army use. Claim found 
paffe 107 index of claims filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Exocii Humphreys. (Marv PI Humphreys, executrix.) (H. D. 
619-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31. 1906. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $370 taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuf.l Hunt. (Dennis H. Hunt, administrator.) (H. D. 447- 
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 24, 1896. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $508 taken for Army use. 
Claim presented in name of Sarah A. Hunt, widow of Samuel Hunt, 
to Claims Commission, as appears from published reports of that 
commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Patrick Jennings. (J. W, Jennings, administrator.) (H, 480- 
61-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court January 30, 1906. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $190 taken for Army use. 
Claims pi"esented to Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

SiBiNi Jones. (H. D. 208-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal 
and that supplies worth $215 were taken from her for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Cathari>e Kelton. (H. D. 430-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $500 taken for Army use. Claim found on page 133, index 
of Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Solomon Landis. (Mary A. Landis, administratrix.) (S. D. 
GG2-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that militaiy forces tore 
down several buildings and used materials thereof and took other 
Army supplies, all worth $1,100. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Elijah Pinson. (Joe M. Moon, administrator.) (H. D. 199- 
58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 29, 1897. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $705 taken for Army use. 
Claim found page 188, index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj'-second Congresses. 

William H. Rice. (Julia A. Cruselle, administratrix.) (H. D. 
536-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 11, 1906. Court 
finds claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $8,190 were taken for 
Army use. Claim found on page 197, index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDEB THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 53 

Jacob B. EussELL. (S.Inman, administrator.) (H. D. 203-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $3,210 were taken for Army use. 
Claim filed with Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Melvin J. Smith. (Matildia J. Smith, widow.) (H. D. 234-58-3.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 11, 1890. Court finds claimant 
loyal, and that supplies worth $295 were taken for Army use. Claim 
found on page 218, index of Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William L. Strain. (H. D. 715-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 15, 1906. Apparently through error in printing the 
findings the name of the administrator is not shown. It is evident 
the case was represented in the court by an administrator. By mak- 
ing appropriation to the estate this difficulty may be met however. 

Court finds decedent loyal. Supplies worth $724 were taken for 
Army use. Claim filed with Claims Commission. Findings certified 
too late for previous consideration. 

Aaron Turner. (B. J. Cowart, administrator.) (S, D. 347-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds Turner loyal, and that supplies worth $415 were taken 
from him for Army use; also that claim was presented to Southern 
Claims Commission, but became barred there. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

MiLLiNGTON Waldrop. (W. C. Waldrop, administrator.) (H. D. 
570-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31. 1906, by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $641 
were taken for Army use ; that decedent presented a claim in 1867. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Carl AVeiland. (Otto Seller, administrator.) (S. D. 106-61-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds that decedent, Weiland, was a neutral foreigner during 
war; that United States forces took supplies worth $3,022 from him 
for Army use; that claim was presented by decedent to Southern 
Claims Commission, but was rejected by that commission; than on 
January 2, 1907, claim was referred to court by Committee on War 
Claims under Bowman Act, but as loyalty was jurisdictional under 
that act, and as claimant's decedent was a neutral foreigner, his 
petition Avas dismissed under that reference. 

Assuredly, under every principle of international law and of fair- 
ness as well, the only proof as to conduct which could be demanded 
of an alien resident within the Confederacy during the war is that 
he remained neutral. He owed no allegiance either to the United 
States or to the Confedarcy. In short, in case of an alien, proof 
of neutrality necessarily takes the place of proof of loyalty which 
might be demanded of a citizen. 

Passed the Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



54 CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Mari' a. Gammon, O. B. Whatley, and D. A. Whitehead. 
(Sole surviving heirs of AVilson O. B. Whatley, deceased.) (H. D. 
273-C3-1.) Judicial Code of March 3, 1911. Referred to court by 
House resolution June 22, 1912. The court makes a favorable find- 
ing as to the loyalty of the original owner of the property, Wilson 
O. B. Whatley, and his widow and children who survived him at 
the time of his death. It is also found that property worth $1,019 
was taken from them by proper authority for the use of the Army. 

While the findings of the court are not clear as to who should be 
regarded as the present claimants, an examination of the court record 
in the case confirms the correctness of the title as given in the court's 
statement of the case and shows that the appropriation should read 
to Mary A. Gammon, O. B. Whatley, and D. A. Whitehead, as sole 
surviving heirs of Wilson O. B. Whatley. 

The conclusion of the court is that the claim is an equitable one. 

The claim was certified too late for inclusion in prior bills. 

Church of Christ. Acworth, Ga., successor to Christian 
Church. (S. D. 407-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 
1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal as a church 
body ; that United States forces, by proper authorit}^ took possession 
of the church building, destro^^ed sam^^, and used part of the material 
in construction of quarters ; that building was reasonably worth $400. 
It is believed that the facts mentioned are such as should cause pay- 
ment of the claim, the materials, at least in part, having been put to 
proper military use. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses 

Masonic Hall Trustees, Atlanta, Ga. (S. D. 723-60-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal as an organization; that military forces^ 
by proper authority, occupied the premises from November 1, 1865, 
to and including Februaiy 28. 18G6. and also during March, 1866; 
that reasonable rental, including wear and tear, was $475 ; that claim 
was presented to the Quartermast-er General in 1867 and rejected 
for lack of jurisdiction; that it was rejected by Treasury Depart- 
ment for lack of jurisdiction in 1872; that it was later presented to 
the Forty-fifth Congress. It is set forth in the statement of case 
that vouchers were given for $475, amount allowed by the court. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. Phillip's Episcopal Church, Atlanta, Ga. (Albion W. 
Knight et al.) (S. D. 186-58-2.) Tucker Act. The findings are 
entitled Albion W. Knight et al., they being the officers of claim- 
ant church at time the case was tried. Sent to court March 2, 1891, 
by Committee on War Claims, evidently under Bowman Act, but 
dismissed, apparently for lack of jurisdiction; was again referred 
to the court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution under Tucker Act. 

Court found claimant loyal and made an allowance or finding for 
two separate items, one for buildings torn down and from which ma- 
terials were taken for Army use in the sum of $3,760, the other item 
being for damages to the house of worship incident to use and oc- 
cupation, amounting to $800. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 55 

The first-mentioned item was paid in the claims appropriation act 
of February 24, 1905. Apparently by inadvertence the second item of 
$800 was omitted from that act. 

This $800 item stands exactly on the same footing as other claims 
arising from use and occupation of church premises, and no reason 
appears why it should not be paid. 

This item of $800 was passed by the Senate in the Sixtieth and 
Sixty-first Congresses and by the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Catholic Church, Dalton, Ga. (S. F. 188-62-2.) Tucker Act. 
Sent court June 22, 1910, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal. United States troops occupied this church as a smallpox 
hospital and then burned it. Building worth $3,600. This claim is 
like that of Fletcher Chapel, of King George County, Va., considered 
among the Virginia claims. The only difference is that in the claim 
of Fletcher Chapel the court explicitly reports that the building 
was burned after being occupied as a smallpox hospital for the pur- 
pose of preventing spread of the contagion. ' 

In the case under consideration it is a matter of necessary and 
fair inference that the building was burned to avoid spread of con- 
tagion as a sanitary measure for protection of the Army. If such 
claims be considered from the standpoint of dollars and cents, then it 
can be reasonably said that the Army benefited from this destruction, 
as it naturally prevented illness and death of troops from a dreaded 
disease. 

The very use of a church building as a smallpox hospital would 
of itself practically destroy the usefulness of the building forever 
after as a place of worship. No matter how well it might be fumi- 
gated or disinfected people would fear to enter the building. 

Under the conditions reported by the court, it is very plain that 
the destruction of this building was the direct and natural result of 
its use by the Army, just as much so as though the troops had phys- 
ically torn down the building to use the lumber contained in it. 

Under such circumstances it is believed by the committee that this 
claim is to be logically distinguished from claims arising from the 
destruction of church buildings as acts of warfare or by depredation. 

As stated by the Court of Claims in case of Grant (i Ct. Cls., 41), 
quoting from the syllabus: 

The taking of private property for use or for destruction, when the public 
exigency demands it, by a military officer commanding any part of the public 
forces, is an exercise of the right of eminent domain. 

There is no discrimination to be made between property taken to be used and 
property taken to be destroyed. 

In the Grant case a flour mill was destroyed with its contents by 
United States troops to prevent the mill and supplies from falling 
into the hands of Confederates. It is true that case was tried by the 
court under its jurisdiction existing early in the war to render judg- 
ment in such claims, but the principle remains the same. 

For reasons stated, this claim is included in this present bill. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

First Presbyterian Church, Dalton, Ga. (S. D. 526-60-1.) 
Tucker Act, Sent to court March 12, 1903, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States military forces, 



56 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC, 

by proper authority, tore down the church buildinof and used ma- 
terial in erection of barracks : that building was worth $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, Ebenezer, Ga. 

(S. D. 319-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States 
forces occupied premises by proper authority; that use and occupa- 
tion, together with incidental damages, amounts to $225. 

Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and Hou.«e in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

TiMRERRIDfiE PrESBY'I-ERIAX ChURCH, HeNRY CoUXTY, (tA. (H. D. 

640-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 18, 1910, by House 
resolution. Court find> claimant loyal; troops by authority tore 
down church building and used materials in building shelters for 
troops; materials Avorth $500. Conclr.sion of court is the claim is 
equitable. Claim certified too late for previous consideration. 

First Baptist Church, La Fayette, Ga. ( S. D. 355-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court February 21. 1911. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loj^al; troops used church building for military 
purposes; rental value, including damages incident to this use, was 
$300. Court concludes claim is equitable. Findings certified too late 
for consideration in connection with previous bills. 

African Methodist Episcopal Church, Marietta, Ga (S. D. 
305-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces 
by proper authority occupied the church building; that reasonable 
rental, together with repairs occasioned bv occupation, amounts 
to $425. 

"Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Powder Springs, Ga. (S. D. 
228-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal as an organization; that United 
States forces by proper <iuthority tore down church building and 
used material in constructing quarters; that building was reasonably 
worth $800. [ 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Missionary Baptist Church, Powder Springs. Ga. (S. D. 
292-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces 
by proper authority tore down church building and used materials 
in constructing (juarters; that building was reasonably worth $650. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Ringgold, Ga. (S. D. 
506-61-2.) Tucker Act. Referred to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loval and that United States forces 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 57 

by proper authority tore down church building and used the mate- 
rials ; that building was worth $750. 
Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Pleasant Grove Baptist Church, Ringgold, Ga. (S. D. 46-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that military forces by proper author- 
ity tore down church building worth $400 and used the material; 
that claim was presented to Claims Commission and disallowed for 
lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

ILLINOIS. 

Martha J. Bowen. (Widow of Edwin A. Bowen. ) (H. D. 
579-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$221.80. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andrew L. Carter. (H. D. 362-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $48.16. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Bennett Depenbrock. (H. D. 396-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $952.19. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas O. Eddins. (H. D. 274-60-1.) ■Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $227.90. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin F. Ely. (Mary J. Ely, widow.) (H. D. 593-59-2.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $259.68. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

James P. Files. (James P. Files and Alice White, sole heirs, i 
(H. D. 518-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in 
pay, $80.01. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin S. Ford. (H. D. 222-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claiin for difference in pay, $330.43. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas Foster. (S. D. 412-G1-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 28, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, 
he having been a resident of Illinois during war. Material facts 
found by court on property are as follows : 

Thomas Foster was coowner with Elbridge Leonidas Smith in a 
leasehold estate on land near Chicago; premises were fitted up with 



58 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

extensive buildings and fences for purpose of being used as a horse 
fair; September 26, 1862, United States forces, under proper au- 
thority, took possession of premises as camp grounds and barracks, 
and used same until November 24, 1862. November 20, 1862, several 
of the buildings were destroyed by fire, the cause being unknown, 
which caused abandonment of the premises by the troops. The court 
finds that the use and occupation of the premises and of materials 
in the buildings and fences were worth $2,800, after excluding value 
of materials saved by the owners. The court further finds that the 
claimant, Foster, is entitled to one-half of sum mentioned, or $1,400. 
It is further reported that claim was duly presented to the Quarter- 
master General, who took no action because there was no appropria- 
tion out of which to paj^ the claim, and he was without jurisdiction 
to settle it. 

These remarks will also cover the claim of E. Leonidas Smith, 
hereinafter mentioned. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William T. Glenn. (H. D. 298-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $334.75. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William Hanna. (H. D. 257-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $395.57. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Theodore S. Loveland. (Annie Mahar, remarried, widow.) 
(H. D. 393-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in 
pay, $590.39. . . •. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Okkin L. Mann. (H. D. 578-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $283.35. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John E. Mullaly. (H. D. 300-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $99.30. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Fannie Pemberton. (H. D. 209-58-3). Tucker Act. Sent to 
court February 20, 1902, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; she apparently lived in Illinois during war. Court further 
finds that United States forces by proper authority took possession 
of claimant's boat at Golconda, 111., and used same for transporting 
troops and supplies and never returned same; that the boat was 
reasonably worth $4,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

William A. Schmitt. (Nannie L. Schmitt, widow.) (H. D. 
296-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$129.25. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 59 

Pleasant S. Scott. (Mary L. Scott, widow.) (H. D. 677-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $67.70. 
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

E. Leonidas Smith. (Augusta A. Smith, executrix.) (S. D. 
618-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. 

This is the companion case of Thomas Foster, above mentioned, and 
for reasons set forth in connection with the Foster case it is plain 
that this claimant is entitled to receive $1,400 for use and occupation 
of premises near Chicago, 111., and damages incident to that occupa- 
tion. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

John H. Stibbs. (H. D. 267-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $216.18. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William Stubbs. (Carrie M. Persons, executrix.) (H. D. 265- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $411.17. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John J. Vincent. (H. D. 512-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 1, 1902, by House resolution. Court finds that claimant 
was loyal and that supplies worth $282 were taken by proper author- 
ity for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

INDIANA. 

Lewis J. Blaie. (H. D. 243-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $434.14. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas M. Broavne. (Sarah E. Smith and George W. Browne, 
sole heirs.) (H. D. 283-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for 
difference in pay, $202.84. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel E. Calvert. (S. D. 528-61-2.) Tucker Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $274.92. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

William G. Dudley. (H. D. 256-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $381.87. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eussell p. Finney. (H. D. 570-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $153.95. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



60 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

John W. Folaxd. (PI. D. 289-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $477.04. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

AxDEEw G. GoRRELL. ( H. D. 110-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $264.71. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Silas Gri:mes. (H. D. 275-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $288.37. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John W. Headington. (H. D. 259-60-1.) Bowman Act. Offi- 
cer's claim for difference in pay, $194.19. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Ni:nRoi) Headington. (S. D. 530-61-2.) Tucker Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $276.45. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hira:^! Hines. (H. D. 286-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $309.45. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Josiah Jennison. (Jeanette J. Guard, administratrix.) (S. D. 
217-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21. 1910, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that Jennison was loyal and that United 
States forces took from him in Dearborn County. Ind., for use of 
the Arm}^ supplies worth $1,210. Court further reports that claim 
was presented to Congress in 1889, and subsequently presented in 
Fifty-ninth, Sixtieth, and Sixty-first Congi'esses. 

Court appends its conclusion to the effect that the claim is an 
equitable one. 

Passed House in Sixtj'-second Congress. 

Joseph P. Leslie. (Kate Morehead, Clara M. Girard, and Flor- 
ence E. Cochran, heirs.) (H. D. 248-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $55.43. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj'-second Congresses. 

John D. Longfellow. (H. D. 629-60-1.) Bowman Act. Offi- 
cer's claim for difference in pay, $98.51. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cyrus J. McCole. (H. D. 263-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
<^laim for difference in pay, $330.44. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
.Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

Leonaro H. :Maiian. (H. D. 262-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for diff'ereuci' in pny. $119.14. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth iwu] House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Conirresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 61 

Ernest C. North. (H. D. 220-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officers 
claim for difference in pay, $90.90. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Robert W. Pemberton. (H. D. 111-59-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $473.02. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John W. Sale. (H. D. 268-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in paj^ $299.62. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph D. Wyatt. (H. D. 223-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $102,81. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

10 WA. 

Hiram Atkinson. (H. D. 293-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $64,59. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charles C. Baumann. (H. D. 775-61-2.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $238.16. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Newell B. Dana. (Annis M. Dana, widow.) (H. D. 242-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $242. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. • 

Henry Green. (H. D. 297-60-1.) Officer's claim for difference 
in pay, $83.81. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Paris P. Henderson. (H. D. 679-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $392.09. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Michael Hours. (Johannah H. Houps, widow.) (H. D. 
287-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$442.74. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Paul Jones. (Nancy J. Gilleland, widow, remarried.) 
(H. D. 294—60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in 
pay, $173.13. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



62 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Hamilton L. Karr. (H. D. 630-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
olaim for difference in pay, $66.54. 

Passed House in Sixty -first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Basil D. Mowery. (H. D. 592-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $461.22. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

James A. Poor. (D. W. Poor, heir.) (H. D. 158-59-2.) Bow- 
man Act, Officer's claim for difference in pay, $138.83. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

August Schlapp. (H. D. 118-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $399.36. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

George A. Smith. (H. D. 757-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent court 
January 8, 1907. This is rather an application for a bounty than a 
claim, strictly speaking. The facts, in brief, are as follows : 

The claimant was a brigade surgeon, with rank of major, during 
the War with Spain. He contracted typhoid fever at Chickamauga 
and went to his home in Iowa on 30 days' sick leave. He was granted 
this leave on September 16, 1898. On September 20, 1898, while he 
was sick and on leave the War Department issued an order discharg- 
ing him, to take effect September 30, 1898, for the reason that his 
services were no longer required. This order did not reach claimant 
until October 1, 1898, the day after it went into effect. 

By reason of his illness contracted at Chickamauga he was unable 
to resume his practice of medicine until after December 1, 1898. He 
asks that he be paid two months' pay, at $208.33 per month, his pay 
while in the service. It is understood that the general practice of the 
War Department is not to discharge men from the service during 
illness contracted in line of duty. Having been granted 30 days' 
leave on September 16, 1898, he had a right to expect that he would 
receive it and that he would not be discharged meanwhile. Appar- 
ently for that reason he failed to advise the War Department of his 
condition in time to prevent the discharge from taking effect, al- 
though his leave had only half expired. 

Had he served beyond the limits of the United States he would 
have been entitled, by law, to receive two months' extra paj^, but it is 
not shown that he did serve outside the United States. 

The claim was favorably reported in the Sixty-second Congress 
and passed the House in H. R. 19115 in that Congress. In view of 
this previous action the committee is inclined to give this volunteer 
officer the benefit of any doubt ent(?rtained as to propriety of p-AJ- 
ment, thus following the action of the House already' taken in the 
matter, and therefore recommends appropriation of two months' pay, 
amounting to $416.66. 

Abram Treadwell. (H. D. 469-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $450.40. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 63 

KANSAS. 

James P. Barnett, (H. D. 587-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $97.71. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry Bennett. (Samuel A. Shelton, administrator.) (H. D. 
875-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds 
claimant loyal and reports that troops under command of Col. Jen- 
nison, Fifteenth Kansas Volunteers, took from decedent, in Allen 
County, Kans., supplies reasonably worth $845. It is true, the find- 
ing states, that the authority for the taking is not shown, but the very 
nature of the supplies taken would indicate that the taking was not 
for the individual benefit of soldiers, being timber, lumber, one horse, 
one calf, and hogs. It is believed that this claim should be con- 
sidered one of taking for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Frank Crathorne. (H. D. 586-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $201.17. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charles H. Haynes. (Jane H. Haynes, widow.) (H. D. 676- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $100.70. 
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eli E. Helmtck. (H. D. 85-63-1.) Section 151, Judicial Code. 
Sent to court August 24, 1912, by House resolution. This claim is for 
loss of a horse by a mounted officer during battle of Santiago, during 
the Spanish-American War of 1898, the horse being killed during the 
battle. The value of the horse is reported to be $125. The court 
further finds that the claim was submitted with proofs to the ac- 
counting officers and was by them rejected on the theory that there 
was no liability on part of the Government; that the Court of Claims 
has decided in case of Hardie (39 Ct. Cls., 250), and in case of 
Cox (41 Ct. Cls., 86) that a horse so lost should be paid for by the 
Government, those cases being brought under the general juris- 
diction of the court; that this claim was filed in the court under the 
general jurisdiction, but that it was filed five days after the six-year 
statute of limitation had run against it under the general jurisdic- 
tion; that it was therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction; that 
thereafter it was referred to the court by resolution of the House of 
Eepresentatives. 

The conclusion of the court is, in effect, that the claim was a legal 
one, and that judgment would have been rendered on the law and 
facts had suit been originally brought five days earlier. 

It is further stated by the court that the original suit was brought 
within six years after claimant's return from Cuba. 

In view of the facts found and of the conclusion of the court 
there can be no room for question as to the equitable nature of the 
claim, to say the least, and it is therefore included in the bill. 

Claim tried too late for inclusion in prior bills. 



64 CLAIMS UNDER IHE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Alfred W. Kent. (S. D. 455-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 28. 1900. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal 
and that United States forces took from him in Johnson County, 
Kans.. for use of Army, certain horses and used two teams for 22 
days, the reasonable value of 4 horses taken and of use of two teams 
for period mentioned being $664. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Fenelon B. Mathews. (Mary A. Mathews, widow.) (H. D. 
104-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$550.52. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Edmund Metz. (Florence M. Metz, widow.) (H. D. 261-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $113.23. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martin V. B. Sheafor. (H. D. 295-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $152.76. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William H. Sparrow. (H. D. 588-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $165.26. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jacob Samuel Weaver. (H. D. 113-59-1.) Bowman Act. 
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $82.26. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



KENTUCKY, 



John AV. Al\t:s. (S. D. 670-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; 
that troops occupied claimant's farm greater portion of war for 
military purposes; rental value, with damages incident to this use, 
was $2,500; also that Army supplies worth $2,750 were taken for 
Army use, making a total of $5,250. Claim was presented to 
Quartermaster General, but rejected because there was no appropria- 
tion for its payment. Claim was apparenth'^ presented to Forty- 
ninth. Fiftieth, and succeeding Congresses and Avas previously re- 
ferred under Bowman Act. Court concludes that claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Samson M. Archer. (Mary E. Martin, widow, remarried.) 
(H. D. 462-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in 
pay, $115.70. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas N. Arnold. (Thomas N. Arnold, jr., administrator.) 
(S. D. 262-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds that claimant was loyal and that United 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TTJCKEE ACTS^ ETC. 65 

States forces, by proper authority, occupied certain real estate in 
Kentucky belonging to claimant and took from him certain supplies; 
that the reasonable rental value of the real estate occupied, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and the value of the 
supplies taken amount to $5,015. 

The findings are accompanied by the conclusion of the court that 
the claim is an equitable one. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

William A. Attersall. (H. D. 461-59-2.) Bowman Act, 
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $30.74. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses, 

Th.omas K. Ball, (Marv B. Mitchel, administratrix.) (S. D, 
420-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1911, by. Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; troops, by proper au- 
thority, occupied a stable belonging to decedent and also took 
certain supplies; rental value during period of occupation, together 
with value of supplies, was $610. Claim presented to Quartermaster 
General in 1877; referred to court first time under Bowman Act and 
later under Tucker Act. Court reports claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

KiNCHEN Bell. (A. W. Richards, administrator.) (H. D. 108- 
58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House 
resolution. Court finds that claimant was loyal and that supplies 
worth $1,420 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andrew S. Bloom. (Margaret A, Bloom, widow.) (H. D. 
675-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 

$789.20, 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William H. Bosavell. (H. D. 232-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court February 14, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that 
United States forces, by proj^er authority, occupied certain premises 
owned by him, and that reasonable rental was $540. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry P. Bottom. (R. B. Bottom, executor.) (H. D. 837-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 19, 1899. Court finds claimant 
loyal and reports that Union troops, Avhen encamped upon claimant's 
premises several days, took and used various supplies, including corn 
and fencing, all of the value of $1,715. The findings also recite va- 
rious acts of damage, for which no allowance is made. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Valentine S. Brewer. (H. D. 116-59-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $469.90. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 5 



66 CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Patrick Henry Bridgewater, (H. D. 568-61-2.) Bowman Act. 
Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies worth $220 were taken from him for Army use. Claim pre- 
sented in jn'oper time to Quartermaster General. 

Pa-ssed House in SixtA'-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Coleman T. Brown. (H. D. 861-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 14, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies worth $1,620 were taken from him for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Stephen E. Brown. (H. D. 569-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court July 10. 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $490 were taken from him for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Clement Calhoun. (J. Patrick McGee, administrator.) (S. D. 
56-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first on March 4, 1887, under 
Bowman Act, by Committee on "War Claims; claimant found loyal 
under that reference in 1888. April 25, 1900, claim sent to court by 
Senate resolution, under Tucker Act. although it would appear that 
case might haye been tried under Bowman Act, the claim haying been 
])resented to Quartermaster General. Court finds claimant loyal 
and that supplies worth $320 were taken from him for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Mary R. Cammack. (Charles P. Cammack et al., heirs.) (S. D. 
310-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $525 
were taken from her for Army use. From the title adopted by the 
court it would seem that Charles P. Cammack, Lillie V. Oldham, 
Mary B. Harbin, and Frances H. Gloyer are the heirs of decedent, 
to whom appropriation should be made. Findings are accompanied 
by conclusion of the court that the claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixtj'-second Congress. 

W. G. Chesher. (B. H. Chesher, administrator.) (S. D. 246- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court INIay 22, 1908, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $320 were 
taken for Army use. Conclusion of court is the claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Henry Cohen. (Sallie M. Cohen, administratrix.) (S. D. 222- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court under Bowman Act, 
:\Iarch 8, 1898; later sent by Senate resolution May 22, 1908, under 
Tucker Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$856 were taken from him for Armj^ use. Claim for part of prop- 
erty in question was presented to Quartermaster General. The 
Tucker Act reference was eyidently secured to giye court jurisdiction 
iDf that part of claim not preyiously presented. Court states claim 
is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Thomas P. Coldwell. (H. D. 109-59-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $89.83. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC, 67 

Harmon Coxley. (Millard J. Conley, heir.) (H. D. 942-G1-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. 
Court finds the claimant loyal. The findings on property show that 
Conley was oAvner of a raft of logs lying in Paint Creek, Ky. ; that 
this raft was impressed by United States forces as a means of trans- 
portation of soldiers to Catlettsburg, Ky. ; that while so in use the 
raft ran onto a shoal and broke up, which caused abandonment of 
the expedition. The court says it does not appear what finally be- 
came of the logs; nor is the value of the raft of logs" for the purpose 
for which they were seized shown." The court finds, however, that 
the raft and lines binding the logs together were reasonably worth 
$1,200. 

On these findings the committee believes a complete case calling for 
payment has been made out by claimant. His raft was evidently 
seized for use as a flatboat. While being so used, evidently by 
proper military authority, the raft was broken up. Natui'ally the 
logs would float down stream and be lost. Had the troops seized a 
flatboat and had such boat been destroyed by accident while in 
possession of the Army, and as the direct result of its seizure and use, 
there would be no question as to the liability of the Government, 
and the committee can see no reason why the same reasoning should 
not apply in this case. The property was taken in a loyal State, 
from a loyal citizen. Claim was presented to Quartermaster General 
in proper time. While sent to court under Tucker Act, it might 
properly have been referred under Bowman Act. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas D. Denny. (U, S. Denny, heir.) (H. D. 503-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 2, 1891. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $102 taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nathaniel B. Dobbs. (Sarah Ann Dobbs, widow.) (H. D. 
107-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$152.25. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses, 

Woodford Dunn. (William Dunn, administrator.) (H. D. 
850-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies worth $910 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under 
Bowman Act, and being for commissary supplies, claim must have 
been duly presented to Commissary General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Emma F. Everman. (H. D. 238-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court February 18, 1910, by House resolution. Court finds that 
claimant was loyal and that supplies worth $425 were taken for 
Army use. Court accompanies its finding by the conclusion that the 
claim is equitable in sense that Government received benefit of the 
property taken. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Oliver Frazer. (Bessie Frazer, Nannie Frazer, and Kate Frazer 
Eedd, heirs.) (S. D. 511-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court Feb- 



68 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

ruary 21, 1011. by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; 
Army supplies worth $240 taken ; presented to Quartermaster General 
in 1867. Court concludes claim is equitable. 
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

T. S. GRmER. (Hattie Grider, administratrix.) S. D. 510-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1910, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States forces by proper 
authority occupied claimant's dwelling near Bowling Green, Ky., 
for hospital puq^oses and took Army supplies from him by proper 
authority; that the rental value of premises occupied and value of 
supplies taken aggregate $1,795. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James M. Hall. (H. D. 388-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 27, 1903. Court finds claimant to have been loyal. On 
pr()i)erty it is reported that during the war claimant and one Bur- 
roughs were the owners of certain liquors at Mount Sterling, Ky. ; 
that in early part of 1865 United States military forces confiscated 
the liquors on (he grounds that the owners were selling same to en- 
listed men in violation of the orders of the commandant of that place; 
that the liquors were taken away in wagons by said military forces, 
but what disposition was finally made of them does not appear; that 
the reasonable value of the property so taken was $1,500, of which 
claimant was the owner of one-half, M-orth $750. 

It is to be noted that this transaction took place in the State of 
Kentucky, which never seceded and whose citizens were therefore 
entitled to all the constitutional protection of life, liberty, and prop- 
erty. It would seem obvious that the confiscation of this property 
was an arbitrary military act. and the seizure can not therefore be 
said in any sense of the term to have occasioned a divesting of the 
owners' title by " due process of law." 

It does not even appear from the findings that any hearing was 
had, assuming that the military authorities had legal power to con- 
fiscate private property of a citizen. For these reasons the committee 
has included this claim in the bill in the sum of $750, representing the 
share of the present claimant in the value of the property. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Honse in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Starkey Hall. (J. A. Hall, administrator.) (H. D. 364-62-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 8, 1888. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $380 were taken for Army use. Claim 
having been tried under Bowman Act must have been presented to 
the Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

RoKERT Hardwick. (H. D. 378-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 9, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $980 taken for Army use. Claim evidently presented to Quar- 
termaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas PIeyser. (Foster T. Heyser, diaries F. Hevser. and 
George Heyser, executors.) (H. D. 907-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent 



CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 69 

to court March 31, 190G, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal and that supplies worth $1,015 taken for Army use. 
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas E. Hill. (H. D. 200-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
January 8, 190'2, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal 
and that supplies worth $495 taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec- 
ond Congresses. 

John G. Holloway. (E. S. Hollowav and W. S. Holloway, ex- 
ecutors.) (S. D. 469-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April, 
1904, by Senate resolution. The findings in this case would indicate 
that John G. Holloway was a resident of the State of Ohio during 
the war. In the statement of the case it is recited that he has here- 
tofore been found loyal by the court under a Bowman Act reference 
of the claim, and this statement, coming from the court, may doubt- 
less be considered as authentic. The material facts seem to be substan- 
tially these: Premises in Ohio, containing over 400 acres, were leased 
by decedent to State of Ohio in 1861 as a military camp ground. The 
lease provided for a certain rental for one year and a reasonable 
rental should premises be occupied longer. 

In 1862 the United States took possession of premises under terms 
of said lease and occupied the same until 1866, paying proper rental 
therefor. 

It is expressly found by the court that the premises were damaged 
in sum of $802.75 prior to December 29, 1863, as per award made by 
agreed referees. Court further finds additional damage in sum of 
$1,299.25, making a total damage of $2,102. There seems to be no 
question as to the facts, and upon those facts there would seem to 
be no question that the Government owes this man's estate the sum 
of $2,102. It is plain that the claim has been pending many years, 
arose in the loyal State of Ohio, and has been established by legal 
proof. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixtj'-second Congresses. 

William B. Kelly. (H. D. 1243-61-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court April 19, 1898. Court finds claimant loyal au'l that supplies 
worth $50 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bow- 
man Act, claim must have been previously presented to Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Harriet N. Lair. (H. D. 788-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
March 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$350 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bowman 
Act, claim must have been previously presented to Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alfred Leathers. (Eliza Leathers, administratrix.) (S. D. 555- 
60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $825 were 
taken for Army use, exclusive of any unauthorized depredations. 

Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress. 



70 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

J.tXE T. Lee. (Lucy C. Lee. ndniinistratrix.) S. D. 178-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Referred to court by Senate resolution March 18, 1903. 
Court finds that chiimant's decedent was loyal and that property be- 
lonoino; to her was b}- proper authority taken and used for Army pur- 
poses, and that $915 would be proper compensation for said use and 
takino'. 

The court also reports that the ]iarties in interest placed this claim 
in the hands of their ^leuiber of Cono'ress about 1S95. 

The claim seems entitled to favorable consideration. 

Thomas K. Letcheij. (Mary H. Letcher, administratrix.) (H. D. 
1309-G1-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 26, 1910. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supi)lies worth $420 were taken for 
Army use. Having been tried under Bowman Act, claim must haA'e 
been presented to Quartermaster General. In fact, this claim appears 
on index of claims presented to that officer, the index being in the 
possession of the Connnittee on War Claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Joseph E. Lindsey (surA'iving partner of John Lindse}^ & Son). 
(S. D. 213-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that Joseph E. Lindsey and his 
deceased partner, John Lindsey, were loyal; that United States forces 
by proper authority used certain premises belonging to the firm 
in iMontgomery County, Ky., for military purposes ancl damaged the 
same : that said forces also took certain lumber described in the 
petition; that reasonable rental value of premises, together with 
damages in excess of ordinar}^ wear and tear, and value of lumber 
so taken, aggregate $1,080. Court accompanies its finding with 
conclusion that claim is an equitable one in that the Government 
received the benefit of the property for which claim is made. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Robert McClelland. (Catherine McClelland, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 496-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $910 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alexander Magruder. (Elizabeth Magruder, heir.) (H. D. 
106-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pav, 
$220.56. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixt3^-second Congresses. 

Daniel Mans. (H. D. 201-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 18, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal 
and that two horses, worth $250, were taken for Army use by proper 
authority. 

Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Catherine Morin. (George Leonard, administrator.) (H. D. 
751-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 15, 1899, by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$1,105 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 71 

John H. INIarshall. (S. D. 70-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court May 6, 1904, by Senate resolution. 

The facts reported by the court may be briefly stated as follows : 

On June 6. 1864, this claimant, being a citizen of Pendleton 
County, K}^, was drafted into the United States military service: 
in order to secure exemption from actual military service he paid 
to the Government the sum of $300, under the terms of the act of 
February 24, 1864. (13 Stat., 6.) 

At the date of this draft and of this payment Pendleton County 
had already furnished to the -United States military service more 
than its quota of soldiers. This fact evidently developed by a re- 
distribution of credits among this county and other counties made 
after the dates mentioned. In short, while the fact actually existed 
at these dates, it was then unknown. 

Marshall applied for repayment of this $300 and the claim was 
rejected by The Adjutant General June 1, 1869, because the facts 
mentioned were not known when the payment was made. July 30, 
1879, the department declined to reopen the case, because The Adju- 
tant General did not feel that he had the power to reconsider the 
decision of a predecessor. However, he advised the Secretary of 
War that the draft in question was illegally made, and suggested 
that the claim be refered to Congress with a favorable recommen- 
dation. 

The next action was the sending of a letter to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, by the Secretary of War, which letter is 
quoted in the findings of the Court of Claims, and reads as follows : 

War Depabtment, December 2, 1879. 
The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representa- 
tives papers relating to the eh\ini of John H. Marshall, of Pendleton County, Ky., 
to be paid the amount of $300 paid by him to the United States in June, 1S64, l)y 
way of commutation money as a drafted man. 

The claim is recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress. 

Geo. W. McCrary, 

Secretary of War. 
The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

The only congressional action which followed was the reference 
of the claim to the Court of Claims for findings of fact, first under 
the Bowman Act, which reference was dismissed for lack of juris- 
diction; and later under the Tucker Act, as above mentioned. 

This case was tried by the Court of Claims in 1904, and as the law 
then stood the sole function of the court was to report the material 
facts. By the subsequent acts of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 837), it 
was made the further duty of the court to accompany its findings of 
fact in Tucker Act claims, with a conclusion as to whether the claim 
was legal or equitable. On the present findings Congress must de- 
termine for itself the question of whether the claim is legal or equi- 
table, without the benefit of the court's conclusion, however. 

The court has said, in effect, that Pendleton Comity was not subject 
to this draft when it was made, and the Adjutant General has stated 
that this draft was illegal, and the Secretary of War has recom- 
mended the claim to the favorable consideration of Congress. 

In view of all these reported facts, the committee recommends pay- 
ment, and in so doing follows the action of the House, which passed 
this claim in H. R. 19115, Sixty-second Congress. This claim Avas 
also passed by the Senate in the Sixtieth Congress. 



72 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

SImuel p. ]Martix. (H. D. 334-00-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court Januar}^ 18, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal. Facts on property are as follows : 

Claimant apparently ferried United States troops across Kentucky 
River at various times, for which service he claimed $1,100. It also 
appears that the United States forces took from claimant certain 
ferryboats and barges and used same for fuel. While the ultimate 
finding of the court is not as explicit as might be desired, it may be 
reasonably construed as meaning that the value of ferriage services, 
together with value of the boats taken from claimant, aggregate $330. 
Claim was presented to the Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hubbard K. Milward. (Kate W. INIilward, widow.) (H. D. 
103-59-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$545.10. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Rudolph Mikton. (S. D. 141-01-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 27, 1906, b}^ Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies Avorth $310 were taken for Army use. Claim presented 
to Congress as early as Fifty-third Congress. In the Fifty-fourth 
Congress the House Committee on "War Claims reported the claim 
favorably for reference t9 the Court of Claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Robert L. Moore. (H. D. 379-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 31, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $213 were taken for Army use. Claim was presented to Com- 
missary General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congrssses. 

Zachariah a. Morgan. (Ella J. Vermillion, heir.) (H. D. 
157-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$52.60. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jesse S. Munday. (Miriam F. Munday, widow.) (H. D. 301- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $501.86. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj'^-second Congresses. 

Ion B. Nall. (H. D. 114-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $46.40. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

"William A. Nally. (Hannah Nall v. executrix.) (S. D. 260- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $2,013 were 
taken for Army use; that claim was presented to the Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 73 

MixGO Peters. (S. D. 325-G2-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that 
he was a slave during war, but was allowed by his master to own 
some property; Army supplies taken from him worth $110. Court 
reports claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Samuel H. Pipes. (S. D. 461-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that sujDplies worth $1,210 were taken by proper authority; that 
claim was presented to Quartermaster General and later to Congress. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William L. Poyxter. (Fannie C. Poynter, administratrix.) 
(H. D. 386-61-2.) Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies worth $610 were taken for Army use ; claim was pre- 
sented to the Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Riley. (Elias J. Riley, administrator.) (H. D. 478-62-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 3, 1908. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; Army supplies worth $210 taken. Having been tried under 
Bowman Act, claim must have been previously presented to Com- 
missary General. 

Tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Belle M. Robards. (S. D. 511-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies worth $425 were taken by proper authority; that claim 
was first presented in 1891. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John W. Robbins. (H. D. 463-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pav, $263. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj'-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Richard M. Robinson. (Margaret P. Robinson, widow.) (S. D. 
120-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $227 
were furnished to United States Army. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

T. P. Salter. (H. D. 259-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
February 20, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds that claimant 
was loyal and that supplies worth $350 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixtj'^-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

David B. Sanders. (C. H. Webb, jr., administrntor.) (H. D. 
1371-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 19, 1907. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth $1,975 were taken for 
Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jesse C. Speak. (Mary Speak, widow.) (H. D. 465-59-2.) Bow- 
man Act. Officer's claim for ditference in pay, $36.60. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-first 
Congresses. 



74 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 

Ai.-i)i{Ew J. TuANGHBER. (H. D. 12120-60-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent 
to court May 7. 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
worth $700 were taken by proi)er authority. Having been tried 
under Bowman Act, claim must have been presented to Quarter- 
ma<iter (Tcnoral. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John L. AValkeij. (K. A. AValker, executor.) (H. D. 060-61-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court September 7. 1888. Court finds claim- 
ant loyal and tliat supplies worth $324 were taken for Army use. 
Having ben tried under Bowman Act. claim must have been pre- 
sented to the Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin P. Waller. (H. D. 459-50-2.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for dilference in pay, $524.77. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congi-esses. 

Elijah AYarren. (H. D. 681-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 14, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies worth $175 were taken for Army use. Being Bowman Act case, 
must have been presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec- 
ond Congresses. 

John E. AA^ells. (H. D. 468-50-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $256.24. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eleanor G. AA^hitney. (S. D. 381-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 3, 1000, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal. The claim, as per court findings, consists of two items. The 
first is the rental value of real estate occupied by military forces for 
military purposes. The court finds that this rental value, together 
with incidental damages, amounts to $2,503. The court further finds 
that supplies were taken for Army use worth $3,063, the total amount 
allowed being $6,466. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph AA'ilson. (John M. AA^ilson, administrator.) (S. D. 
258-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1004, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies worth 
$2,300 were taken for Army use; first presented to Fifty-seventh 
Congress. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

AA'iLLiAM J. AA'oRTiiiNGTON. (H. D. 470-50-2.) Bowman Act. 
Officer's claim for difference in j^ay, $36.40. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

Baptist CnrRCH, Bowling Green, Ky. (S. D. 281-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 13, 1008, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal. It further appears that the church build- 
ing was occupied by Federal forces for about 12 months and that 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 75 

reasonable rental value for that period is $650. No allowance is made 
for damag'es. as it was not proven satisfactorily how much damage 
was actually inflicted durino- Federal occupation. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Christ Protestant Episcopal Church, Bowling Green, Ky. 

(S. D. 435-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 13, 1908, 
by Senate resolution. 

Court reports claimant loyal: that United States military forces 
occupied the church building a year for hospital purposes; that the 
church was paid the sum of $484 in full for the use and occupation 
and the damages incident to the use; but that, evidently after use for 
hospital purposes, the building was torn doAvn, and the materials 
taken from the building (evidently bricks or stone) were used 
in making camp chimneys and other structures for military uses; 
that the reasonable value of these materials so taken and used, ex- 
cluding the items of claim previously paid, was the sum of $300. 
which is the sum now proposed to be paid. 

It is plain that this sum of $300 is entirely distinct from the item 
for which payment was previously made. 

It would seem that the claim was inadvertently omitted from prior 
bills. 

First Presbyterian Church, Bowling Green, Ky. (S. D. 

99-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied the church buiMing as a hospital and damaged same; that 
reasonable rental, together with damage in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was $1,125. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first, and. House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Bowling Green, Ky. 
(S. D. 193-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States 
forces used church building for hospital purposes; that reasonable 
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinarv wear and tear, Avas 
$730. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first, and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church, Brandenburg, Ky. (S. D. 380-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal, and that United States forces occupied church build- 
ing for military purposes; that reasonable rental value, including 
damages in excess of ordinarv wear and tear, was $180. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first, and House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^- 
second Congresses. 

Harrison Masonic Lodge, Xo 122, Brandenburg, Ky. (S. D. 
383-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, and that its lodge building 
was occupied by United States forces for military purposes; that 
rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, was $125. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first, and House in Sixty-first and vSixty- 
second Congresses. 



76 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN XXD TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg. Ky. 
(S. D. 34&-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loj^al, and that United States 
forces occupied church buildino; for military purposes; that reason- 
able rental Aalue, to<»ether Avith damages in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, is $125. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first, and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, or Bryantsville, Ivy. 
(S. D., 140-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 6, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces 
occupied church building for hospital about six months; that reason- 
able rental value, together Avith damages in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was $410. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church or Crab Orchard, Ky. (S. D., 223-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied 
church building from about November. 1861, until fall of 1864 : that 
reasonable rental value, including repairs necessary to restore build- 
ing to former condition, was $1,050. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Andreavs Lodge, No. 18. Free and Accepted Masons, Cynthi- 
ANA, Ky. (H. D., 624-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 
20, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that 
United States forces occupied lodge building for militaiy purposes; 
that reasonable rental value during occupancy, including cost of re- 
pairs necessary to restore building to former condition, Avas $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Church or Danvillle. Ky. (S. D., 36-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied its church 
building for hospital purposes: that reasonable rental value, includ- 
ing repairs necessary to restore building, was $725. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church of Danville. Ky. (S. D., 253-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court INfarch 2. 1907. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that Ignited States forces occupied its 
church building as a hospital : that rental value, including damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, Avas $700. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Presbyterian Church of Danville. Ky. (S. D., 345-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 77 

church building as hospital ; that rental value, together with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $610. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, or Danville, Ky. (S. D., 
9/1^60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces 
occupied buildings and grounds of claimant for military purposes; 
that rental value, together with damage in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was $520. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian TiteoloCxICAl Seminary of Kentucky. (S. D. 
98-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occu- 
pied buildings and grounds of claimant for military purposes; that 
reasonable rental value was $1,150, no damages being shown. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth nnd Sixty-first and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Bapiist Church or Flemingsburg, Ky. (J. Harrison Planck 
and P. S. Dudley, trustees.) (H. D. 35-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court February 20, 1903, by House resolution. Court finds claim- 
ant loyal: that United States forces occupied church building and 
grounds for military purposes; that rental value with incidental 
damages was $775. Court further reports that claim was presented 
to the Quartermaster General in 1876; that claim remained in that 
office for 10 years, papers having been mislaid ; that it was then 
sent to Auditor, where it stayed until 1893. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Glasgow Graded Common Schools. (S. D. 559-60-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds that claimant is successor in interest to Glasgow Academy or 
Urania College of Glasgow: that said organization was loyal; that 
United States forces occupied school building for hospital and other 
military purposes; that reasonable rental value was $1,215, exclud- 
ing the element of damage as not proven to have been inflicted by 
Federal forces. Court further re])orts that in May, 1865, the board 
of trustees appointed an agent to present the claim. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Baptist Church or PIarrodsburg, Ky. (S. D. 266-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States forces used church building as a 
commissary: that reasonable rental value, with damage in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was $675. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



78 ^ CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 

FiKST Presbyterian Chi rch of Harrodsburg, Kr. (S. D. 
875-:)9-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 190G, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: that United States forces 
occujiied cluirch j^roperty for lios]-)ital purposes about five months; 
that reasonable rental value, with damaire in excess of ordinaiy wear 
and tear. Avas $1,100. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

^Iktiiodist Ei'isc'oi'Ai, Cin^RCH South of Harrooshurg, Ky. . (S. 
D. :^lG-()0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Couil finds claimant lo.yal; that United States forces 
occupied church building as a hospital about six months: that rea- 
sonable rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, was $750. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Presbyterian Church, Lebanon. Ky. (PI. D. 312-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31. 1906. by House resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal: that United States forces occupied 
church building at inter^■als for a period of about two years, first as a 
hospital and later as a barracks and still later as a fort: that rea- 
sonal)le rental value of building during occupancy, with damages 
caused by ITnited States forces in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $1,500, of which it appears claimant has been paid $120, leaving 
a balance due of $1,380. The claim is included in the bill in tlie 
sum of $1,380. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Augustines Roman Catholic Church, of Lebanon, Ky. (S. 
D. 596-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States 
forces occupied church building for hospital purposes; that rental 
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $405. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Louisa, Ky. (S. D. 652-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court August 12, 1911, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops occupied church property for 
military purposes; rental value, Avith damages incident to this use, 
was $600. Court reports claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Methodist Episcopal Church Sourn, of Mount Sterlin(;, Ky. 
(S. D. 189-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that United 
States forces occupied building as a hospital and barracks; that 
rental value, with (hunage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
$460. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



claims under the bowman" and tucker acts, etc. 79 

Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ky. (S. D. 96-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied 
church premises for quarters; that reasonable rental value, Avith 
damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $650. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Salt Rr-er Lodge, Xo. 180, Free Ancient and Accepted Masons, 
Mount Washington, Ky. (S. D. 130-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; that United States forces occupied its premises for military 
purposes; that reasonable rental value, including damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was $120. 

Court accompanies its findings with conclusion that claim is equita- 
ble in the sense that the United States Army received the benefit of 
the use and occupation of the building and damaged same to the 
amounts found. 

Passed House in Sixtj-second Congress. 

Green River Collegiate Institute, Muneordville, Ky. (Suc- 
cessor to Hart Seminary.) (S. D. 95-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Hart 
Seminary, of Munfordville, of which Green River Collegiate Insti- 
tute is successor, was lo,yal ; that United States forces occupied build- 
ing and grounds of said seminary for military purposes; that rental 
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $525. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jessamine Female Institute. (Successor to Bethel Acaclemv, of 
Nicholasville. Ky. ) (S. D. 605-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Bethel 
Academy, to which Jessamine Female Institute, present claimant, is 
successor, was loyal; that United States forces occupied building 
and grounds for hospital and camping purposes; that rental value 
during said period, with damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $725. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Christian Church or Nicholasville, Ky. (S. D. 96-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal and that United States forces occupied 
church building for a period of about one year; that rental value, 
with incidental damages, was $940. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Town or Nicholasville, Ky. (S. D. 66-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. The findings of the 
court in this case are not well drawn, and in order to arrive at a con- 
clusion as to what the facts were the findings must be read carefully 
in connection with the bill referred and statements of the petition. 
It may be reasonably inferred that the town of Nicholasville and 



80 CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 

the Presbyterian Cliiirch of said place jointly owned certain real 
estate. It appears that the premises were occupied for hospital and 
other military purposes by United States forces ; that the reasonable 
rental, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $300; that this sum or any amount allowed by Congress should 
be paid to the town of Nicholasville, as the church has released its 
interest in the claim to said town. These seem to be the essential 
facts of the case. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Ky. 
(S. D. 97-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces 
occupied church building as a picket post for several weeks; that 
rental value, together with damage in excess of ordinary Avear and 
tear, was $300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church of Paris, Ky. (S. D. 560-60-2.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied premises of claim- 
ant for military purposes; that rental value, with damage in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

First Presbyterian Church of Paris, Ky. (S. D. 594-60-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church 
premises for quartermaster and commissary purposes; that rental 
value, with damage in excess of ordinary w^ear and tear, was $1,215. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Christian Church, Perryville, Ky. (S. D. 133-62-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal; Federal forces took possession of its building 
and placed therein wounded Confederate soldiers; this occupation 
lasted about four months, United States military authorities exer- 
cising supervision and control; rental value, with damages incident 
to this use, was $220. It being the duty of the Federal authorities 
to care for the wounded Confederate soldiers, these facts mean prac- 
tically an occupation by Federal authorities of the building in ques- 
tion, and the court finds the claim is equitable in the sense that the 
United States received the benefit of the building as mentioned. 
With this conclusion the committee fully agrees. 

Findings were certified too late for inclusion in the previous bill. 

EwiNG Institute, Perryvili-e, Ky. (S. D. 374—60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution. Coui-t finds 
claimant loyal : that Federal forces occupied school building for hos- 
pital purjjoses; that rental value, with damage in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, was $270. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 



claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 81 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Perryaille, Ky. (S. D. 
520-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied church building- for hospital purposes; that rental value, 
with damage in excess of ordinaiy wear and tear, was $425. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbyteri-ax Church or Perryville, Ky. (S. D. 342-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church 
building for hospital; that rental value, with damage in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was $325. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church of Princeton, Ky. (S. D. 235-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied premises for hos- 
pital purposes and damaged same ; a claim was presented in 1878 to 
Quartermaster General for use and occupation and damages in sum 
of $800; in 1879 the claim was allowed in the sum of $150, merely for 
rent, and paid to that extent. The claim for damages incident to 
occupation was disallowed for want of jurisdiction. The court re- 
ports that the damages amount to $110, which is the amount pro- 
posed to be now paid. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second CongTesses. 

Madison Female Institute. (S. D. 132-59-2.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds that 
claimant is an association for education of females, existing by virtue 
of a special charter granted by State of Kentucky in 1858. In ab- 
sence of anything to the contrary, the legal presumption is that this 
claimant was loyal, Kentucky not being a seceding State. The find- 
ings show that United States troops occupied premises of claim- 
ant, improved hj large and substantial buildings, from August 30, 
1862, to June 25, 1863 ; that the Quartermaster General allowed and 
Congress appropriated $4,097.22 as rental for said property; that as 
an incident to said occupancy the premises were damaged apparently 
by demolition of outhouses, fences, etc., to the amount of $6,500, 
which has not been paid. It is this item of damage that it is now 
proposed to pay. 

In the Sixty-second Congress it was suggested in a report made in 
another body that the findings simply give the value of the entire 
property and furnish no basis for any present appropriation. A 
reasonable construction of these findings makes it obvious that the 
allowance of $6,500 is for property torn down, removed, and used, as 
it covers the items of outhouses, fences, trees, shrubbery, and porches. 
The finding is susceptible of no other reasonable construction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cuimberland Presbyterian Church of Russellville, Ky. (S. D. 
270-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first time by Committee on 

19S5.5— H. Rept. 97, G3-2 6 



82 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

« 

War Claims on JNlay 1. IDOG. under Bowman Act. On June 13, 1906, 
sent to court by Senate resolution under Tucker Act and tried under 
that reference. Court Hnds claimant loyal and that premises in ques- 
tion Avere occupied by United States forces for about three j-ears for 
hospital and barracks: that reasonable rental and damage amount to 
$1,650. 

Careful examination of Poinding II shoAvs that record title of 
claimant Avas defective in that the conve3^ance to it AAas-not recorded; 
that after the war the claimant church, by its trustees, made a con- 
veyance of the ])remises to one Barclay, and that the trustees of the 
Baptist Church of that j^hice joined in said conveyance as the original 
grantors of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. That action by 
the trustees of the Baptist Church obviously operated as a quitclaim 
from the Baptist Church to cure the defect in record title occasioned 
by failure to record deed made prior to Avar evidencing transfer of 
title from the Baptist Church to the Cumberland Presbyterian 
Church. Such deeds are made every day to perfect record titles and 
can give rise to no suspicion as to title. Claim Avas ])resented to 
Quartermaster General in 1877 for damages to the building, but AA^as 
rejected for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church of Shepherdsville, Ky. (S. D. 563-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that military forces occupied church 
building about one year and a half; that claimant Avas paid $811,90 
to coA^er damages or cost of making necessary repairs to building; 
that claimant Avas never paid anything for rent; that reasonable 
rental value was $150; that the claim for rent was disalloAved by 
Quartermaster General in 1871 for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church or Soaierset, -Ky. (S. D, 177-58-3.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States troops occupied church building 
as a hospital : that rental value, including repairs necessary to restore 
building to former condition, Avas $1,500. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

l*nESBYTERIAN ChURCH OF SOMERSET, Ky. (S. D. 440-60-1.) 

Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church 
building for hospital purposes for a total period of about three years; 
that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary Avear and tear, 
Avas $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
.second Congresses. 

Antioch Methodist Episcopal Cht^rch South, or Steavart, Ky. 
<S. D. 341-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Courts finds claimant loyal; that T'^^nited States 
forces occupied church building for hospital purposes; that rental 
value, Avith damages in excess of ordinary Avear and tear, Avas $240. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 83 

LOUISIANA. 

Vincent Avet. (Victorie C. Avet. administratrix.) (S. D. 191- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds that Vincent AacI Avas a neutral alien, living in 
Louisiana during- war. So far as his conduct during war is con- 
cerned, the fact that he was a neutral alien gives him in law the same 
standing as though he had been a loyal citizen. Neutrality is all that 
can be laAvfully demanded of an alien. 

On proj^erty the court finds that he was the owner of certain real 
estate in Plaquemine, La., worth about $6,000; that these premises 
were used for military purposes from January 1, 1863, to Xovember 
14. 1865 ; that reasonable rental value, Avith damage incident to occu- 
pation, Avas $2,200; that United States forces also took from him 
horses Avorth $225, making a total of $2,425. Court further reports 
that being an alien Avet did not present his claim to Southern Claims 
Commission. The reason is obvious, as no tribunal Avas open to him, 
especially as it appears from the statement of the case that Avet 
became a citizen by naturalization in 1866, A\diich act prevented him 
from presenting any claim to the French-American Claims Commis- 
sion established by treaty of 1880. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Remy Bagarry. (S. D. 1G7-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 27, 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds that claimant Avas 
a neutral foreigner during the Avar. As just mentioned in the case of 
Vincent AA^et, that is sufficient on this point. The court further re- 
ports that supplies worth $1,520 Avere taken for Army use. Xo alloAv- 
ance was made on the item of cotton. Claimant being an alien during 
the war could not haA'e presented this claim to the Southern Claims 
Commission, and it is further reported by the court that claimant Avas 
absent in a foreigTi country during the time alloAved for presenting 
claims to that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Selzer Bass (heirs). (H. D. 379-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court by House resolution March 2, 1895. 

The court reports that at time of taking the supplies for Avhich 
claim is made it belonged to the widow and children of James A. 
Bass, deceased, their respective interests being stated as folloAvs: 

1. Mrs. ludiana T. Bass, widow, one-half. 

2. Mattie S. Holland, danghter, one-sixth. 

3. James A. Bass, jr., son, one-sixth. 

4. Selzer Bass, son, one-sixth. 

However, the court also reports that none of the owners have been 
proven loyal except the youngest child, Selzer Bass, who Avas found 
loyal because of his tender years. It therefore follows that under 
the existing practice of paying only loyal owners for supplies taken, 
the one-sixth interest of Selzer Bass "is the only part of the claim 
that can be now paid. 

The court reports that supplies Avorth $20,445 were taken for Army 
use. The one-sixth interest of Selzer Bass therein would be $3,- 
407.50, which is the amount it is proposed to appropriate. 



84 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

It being reported that Selzer Bass is dead, payment should be made 
to his heirs or estate, as the court has not reported who Avoidd be his 
representatives or heirs. 

It is noted that the court finds that Selzer Bass died before the 
Southern Claims Commission was established and that the other 
members of the family were financiall}^ unable to bring witnesses to 
Washington to testif}', as would have been required in a claim of 
this size. 

Henry Bauman. (John Fisher, administrator.) (S. D. 245-62- 
2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 6, 1901, by Senate, resolu- 
tion. Court finds that Bauman was a neutral foreigner, which is 
sufficient on that point. Court further finds that supplies worth 
$950 were taken for Army use. In the claimant's petition it is cor- 
rectl}" stated that it was impossible for him or his heirs to present a 
claim before the Southern Claims Commission, because he was an 
unnaturalized alien during the Avar. It appears that the claim was 
presented to Congress by petition as early as 1900. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

]\[ary J. Barrow. (Eugene Barrow, administrator.) (S. D, 175- 
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April, 1900, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds that Barrow was a British subject during the war and 
was neutral, which is all that could be demanded upon this point. 
Court further finds that supplies worth $12,625 were taken for Army 
use. As in the claims just above mentioned, this claim could not 
have been prosecuted before the Southern Claims Commission, be- 
cause of alienage of claimant during the war. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

H. B. Benjamin. (Adelia B. Greely, sole heir.) (H. D. 363-62- 
2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15. 1006. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $To5 were taken for Army 
use. Claim presented to Southern Claims Commission and appears 
on page 22 of index of such claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Eugene Augustin Bourcy. (Mrs. Marie Ernestine Bourcv et al., 
heirs. (S. D. 647-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds that Eugene Augustin Bourcy was 
an alien during war and neutral ; that he lived part of time in Louisi- 
ana and part of time in Mexico during war. Court further finds that 
Mrs. Marie Ernestine Bourcy, Marie Ernestine Bourcy, jr., Stanislaus 
L. B. Bourcy, and Augustine Theodore Bourcy are the only heirs at 
laAv of decedent. Court further finds that supplies worth $1,125 were 
taken from decedent for Army use ; also that as early as 1864 Bourcy 
presented to the War Department a claim for compensation for the 
sugar, Avhich is the only item allowed by the court; that the claim was 
rejected in 1867 by Commissary General for lack of jurisdiction; 
that in 1881 the decedent presented the claim to the French- American 
Claims Commission established by treaty of January 15, 1880; that 
said claim was dismissed by said commission for lack of jurisdiction 
because decedent was naturalized as a United States citizen i^rior to 
1880. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 85 

Louisa Breaux. (Felix Guidry, administrator.) (S. D. 192-58- 
3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1902, by Senate resolution. 
It appears from the findings that Louisa Breaux was the orio-inal 
owner of the property taken ; that she died during the war, before the 
property was taken; that during her lifetime, by court decree, her 
estate was separated from that of her husband ; that at her death she 
left four children surviving her, viz, Felix Guidry, Arsene Brous- 
sard (nee Guidry), Cecilia Alabarado (nee Guidry), and Loretta 
Broussard (nee Guidry) ; that all of these children were loyal, be- 
ing under 16 years of age in April, 18(35. The court further finds that 
there were taken from these four children for Army use stores and 
supplies worth $7,780 belonging in equal shares to these four heirs, no 
allowance being made on account of the item of cotton. The court 
further reports that on March 3, 1873, when the right to present 
claims to the Southern Claims Commission was abrogated, three of 
said four children were still minors; that during that time none of 
said four children was able to read the English language, and they 
were ignorant of the existence of that commission. The facts of this 
claim are unusually strong in every particular as establishing its en- 
tire justice. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Lindsay L. Brown, Talton E. Broavn, and Sarah Bushnell. 
(S. D. 292-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1901, by 
Senate resolution. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated 
in the mater of title, but, briefly stated, are as follows: 

William K. Brown, original owner of property, died in 1863, be- 
fore any property was taken. He left surviving him his widow, Mrs. 
Elmyra Brown, and five children, named, in order of ages. William 
Allison Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah Brown (now Bushnell), 
Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown. The court finds not loyal 
the widow, Elmyra Brown, and two children, Henry J. Brown and 
William Allison Brown. 

The court finds loyal the three children, Sarah Bushnell, Lindsay 
L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown. 

Court further finds that supplies of total value of $17,250 were 
taken for Army use from this family. Eliminating from further con- 
sideration the interests of the owners held not loyal, the interests of 
the loyal owners were as follows : 

1. Sarah Biislinell $1,725 

2. Lindsay L. Brown 1,72.5 

3. Taltou E. Brown 1,725 

The above three interests or shares are the only ones to be paid. 
Lindsay L. Brown is found to be now deceased, and his heirs are 
Kosa Brown, Meeker Brown, and Jennie May Brown, to whom the 
appropriation of $1,725 for their father's share should be made. Tal- 
ton E. Brown is also deceased, and his share, or $1,725, should be 
paid to his heirs, who are found to be Mrs. Elmyra Jones, William 
Brown, Bertha Brown, May Brown, and Esther I3row^n. 

Claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission, and 
it is reported that during the time allowed for such presentation said 
Lindsay L. Brown and said Talton E. Brown were minors. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



86 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Felicite Xeda Chretien. (Athouais Cliretieii LeMore. adminis- 
tratrix.) ( S. D. 299-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court December IG, 
1903. by Senate resobition. Court finds chiimant loyal: that supplies 
Avorth $15.cS90 were taken from clainumt and cooAvner: that claimant's 
share was $7,94."). which is tlie amount carried by the bill. AVhile the 
court found that certain cotton was also taken, it made no allowance 
therefor. The court reports that decedent presented her claim to the 
Southern Claims Commission, but because of poverty was unable to 
procure attendance of witnesses in Washington City, as required by 
that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and SixtA^-second Congresses. 

Stephen D. Clark. (S. D. 135-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. It appears from the find- 
ings that during the Avar the property in question belonged to Stephen 
D. Clark and his coowners. Emily C. Lovelace and Charles L. Clark; 
and the court finds all of these persons loyal by reason of their tender 
years. The decedent, Emily C. Lovelace, was the half sister of 
Stephen D. Clark and of Charles L. Clark, brothers. Since the war, 
said Emily C. Lo^■elace and Charles L. Clark died, unmarried and 
intestate, leaving Stephen D. Clark as their only heir and repre- 
sentatiA'e. The court finds that the value of the supplies taken for 
Army use from these three children Avas $4,240, all of which Avould 
go to Stephen D. Clark, in liis own right and as heir and representa- 
tiA'e of his said half sister. Emily C. Lovelace, and of his said brother, 
Charles L. Clark. Court further reports that claim a\\ts not pre- 
sented to any department, and that the reason given is the tender 
age of present claimant and his decedents during the time allowed 
for such presentation. Avhich would haA'e been between March 3, 1871, 
and March 3, 1873. It appears from the allegation of the petition 
that Stephen D. Clark Avas born in 1854, and therefore did not attain 
majoritA^ until about 1875. 

In the Sixty-second Congress, in a report in another body, it was 
stated that the findings failed to shoAv hoAV these minors came into 
the OAvnership and possession of the property, which leaves a doubt 
as to Avhether it Avas in fact their property. No such objection is 
found by your committee. It is true the Court of Claims has not 
reported the evidence submitted, but has found material facts of 
loyalty, ownership, and taking. It is not deemed by the Committee 
on War Claims a part of its duty to revicAv the evidence adduced 
before the Court of Claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

J. Martin CoMP-mN. (H. D. 1315-G0-2.) Bowman .Vet. Sent to 
court January 9, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
Avere taken from claimant and his cooAvners, Avherein claimant's in- 
terest amounted to $1,990. Being tried under Bowman Act, claim 
must have been presented to Southern Claims Commission, and is 
found on jiage 54 of index of such claims. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jean Crouchet. (J. G. Le Blanc, administrator.) (S. D. 329- 
GO-1.) l^icker A-ct. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate resolu- 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 87 

tion. Court finds that Crouchet was during war a French subject, 
who was neutral. This is a satisfactory finding upon this point. 
Court further finds that supplies worth $1,040 were taken for xVrmy 
use. The court declines to make any allowance on the item of cotton. 
Claim was not presented to Southern Claims Commission, because, 
as stated by the court, the claimant having been an alien during the 
Civil War that commission could not have taken jurisdiction of the 
claim on account of that fact. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Antoine Decuir. (S. D. 48-2-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 2C, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Antoine 
Decuir, the deceased, was loyal during war ; also that supplies worth 
$4,115 were taken for Army use; that effort was made in 1874 to 
present claim to Southern Claims Commission, and again in 1879; 
that decedent had no knowledge of the law limiting the time for 
filing claims before that commission. Decedent's lack of knowledge 
of that law can occasion no surprise, because the law went into effect 
on the date of its approval, i. e., March 3, 1871. 

Court further finds that Antoine Decuir, Joseph Auguste Decuir, 
and Rosa Decuir Macais are the only heirs of said Antoine Decuir, 
deceased, and appropriation is to be made to them. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Louis Delatte. (Charles R. Delatte, administrator.) (S. D. 
238-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 25, 1900, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that Delatte was loyal ; that United States 
forces occupied his premises in Baton Rouge for hospital ; that they 
damaged the premises and also tore down certain houses belonging 
to him in that city and used the materials therefrom; that they 
also took certain stores and supplies for use of the Army; that the 
aggregate rental value of building used as a hospital, with incidental 
damages, with value of materials taken from the other two buildings, 
and of supplies taken is $1,010. No allowance is made for the item 
of cotton. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eeoise Deslonde. (Odile Deslonde, sole heir.) (S. D. 138-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds that decedent, Eloise Deslonde, was a free person of color 
and loyal; that supplies worth $5,325 were taken from her for Army 
use; that Odile Deslonde is the sole heir and representative of said 
Eloise Deslonde. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Bellot a. Doxato. (Nicaise Lemelle, administrator.) (S. D. 
251-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that Donato was loyal ; that supplies worth 
$750 weiv taken for Army use. Court further reports that claim was 
not presented to claims commission and that it appears that the 
decedent was unable to read and write the English language. 



88 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

It is noted that it is alleged in the petition that decedent was a 
free man of color, although that fact is not expressly reported by the 
court with its findings. 

Pa^^sed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Clarisse Doxato. (Ludger Lemelle, administrator.) (S. D. 238- 
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds that decedent was loyal and that supplies worth 
$2,160 were taken for Army use; the court further reports that 13 
bales of cotton were taken, but it makes no allowance therefor because 
the evidence does not establish that the cotton was taken for Army 
use or hospital purposes. 

It is alleged in the j^etition that said decedent was a free person 
of color and that the claim was placed in the hands of counsel for 
filing with the Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Alfred Duplantier. (David P. Gayle and Sarah H. Gayle, ad- 
ministrators.) (S. D. 159-59-2.) Sent to court first time by Com- 
mittee on War Claims under Bowman Act February 3, 1886; claim 
dismissed under Bowman Act reference because claimant had failed 
to submit proper proof in sujjport of his claim filed with the South- 
ern Claims Commission. Sent to court a second time on April 30, 
1902, by Senate resolution. 

Court finds Duplantier loyal and that supplies worth $9,675 were 
taken under proper authority for Army use. Court further finds 
presentation of claim to Southern Claims Commission, but by reason 
of claimant's poverty he was unable to bring witnesses to Washington 
City to testify in person as required by its rules; that bills were 
introduced in the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty-seventh Con- 
gresses for relief of claimant. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congi^ess. 

George W. Dysox. (Calvin H. Dyson, administrator.) (S. D. 
351r-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $715 
were taken from him for Army use. Claim first presented to Fifty- 
sixth and later Congresses. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martin GuiLLORY. (S. D. 212-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; it 
would appear from allegation in petition that he had been a slave. 
Court further finds that supi)lies worth $311 were taken from him 
for Army use. Findings are accompanied by court's ctmclusion that 
claim is an ecpiitable one. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congi-ess. 

John Hoey. (Conrad B. Fischer, administrator.) (S. D. 981- 
62-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds that Hoey was loyal ; that United States forces oc- 
cupied certain real estate belonging to decedent, and also took from 
him certain stores and supplies by proper authority; that the reason- 
able rental value of premises, together with value of said stores and 
supplies, was $7,500. Court further finds that claim was presented 
as early as Forty-third Congress (i. e., as early as 1874) and to later 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 89 

Congresses, and that the widow testifies that she phiced the claim 
in the hands of Gen. Emory, then commanding United States troops 
at New Orleans, as early as 1873, and was later advised by him to 
present it to Southern Claims Commission, but it was then too 
late. The findings are accompanied by the conclusion that the claim 
is an equitable one. The petition states the names and residences 
of the various heirs, residing in Xew Orleans, La., and in ditferent 
counties in the State of New York, but as the estate is represented 
by an administrator appropriation should be made to him. 
Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bills. 

Emile Honore. (Adorea Honore, widow and sole heir.) (S. D. 
115-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 2(j, 1901, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that Emile Honore was loyal; that supplies 
worth $976 were taken by proper authority; that the property was 
community property, belonging to him and his wife, Adorea Honore, 
the present claimant. It further appears that while the claim was 
pending before Congress said Emile Honore stated under oath that 
he was not advised of any tribunal established in the early seventies 
to adjudicate claims of this character. The only tribunal open to 
this claim was the Southern Claims Commission, March 3, 1871, to 
March 3, 1873. While the court fails to expressly find it as a fact 
it is alleged in the petition that the decedent and the present claim- 
ant were free persons of color. Claim was presented to Congress as 
early as Fifty-sixth Congress. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Matthew J. Joxes. (Annie E. Jones et al., heirs.) (H. D. 182- 
58-3.) Bowman Act. The findings are so drawn as to require ref- 
erence to the petition in order to ascertain what facts the court means 
to determine. Eeading the findings and the petition together, the 
following facts appear: 

Property was taken from Annie E. Jones, Robert McElroy Jones, 
Alice J. Jones, Mattie E. Blanchard (nee Jones), Clemence W. 
Brian (nee Jones), Cecilia McElroy Dunn (nee Jones), and Emma 
H. Wells (nee Jones). They were evidently owners of property at 
time of taking, as heirs of ^latthew J. Jones, then deceased. All of 
said seven owners are found loyal, and it is found by the court that 
supplies worth $4,143 were taken from them while they. Avere still 
infants of tender years. Emma H. Wells is now deceased, and her 
estate is represented by Robert M. Jones, administrator. The ap- 
propriation for $4,143 should run to these seven claimants in equal 
shares, as suggested in the bill. 

In the Sixty-second Congress it was suggested by a report in 
another body as an objection to payment of the claim that Matthew 
J. Jones, the father, was not found loyal ; that date of his death is 
not reported; that no administration appears to have been had: and 
that the court fails to show that the claimants owned the property 
at the time of taking, and does not report that Matthew J. Jones did 
not leave a surviving widow. The Committee on War Claims finds 
no such objections to payment of this claim. The court finds ex- 
plicitly that the propert}^ " was taken from the claimants (then 
infants of tender years)," followed by a description of the property 
and place of taking. Findings of the court must be read in a reason- 



90 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

ableVay as meanino: somcthiiif? material, and if inferences must be 
drawn, "they should rather be drawn in favor of the findings mean- 
ing something than otherwise. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Flokville Keklkoax. (S. D. 452-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 2(). 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds that Kerlegan 
AA'as a free colored man. who remained loyal, and that supplies worth 
$671 were taken from him under projier authority: that it is shown 
in evidence that he could neither read nor Avrite nor speak English. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-firet 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

TvosAMOND Lacofr AND CoLiN Lacour. (E. G. Bcuker. adminis- 
trator.) (H. D. 444-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court ]\Iarch 
15, 1890. Court reports both decedents loyal : also that supplies 
worth $685 were taken from them Ijy proper authority. Claim found 
page 138 of Southern Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Adele Eixner Lanaux. (C. La Branche. executor.) (S. D. 
136-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court INIarch 3, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $5,090 
were taken from her by proper authority: that claim was presented 
to Claims Commission : that being unable to defray cost of bringing 
Avitnesses to Washington to testify claimant petitioned said commis- 
sion to be allowed to take testimony locally: that said petition was 
never allowed or denied by said commission: that just before expira- 
tion of time allowed for submitting testimony before the commission 
said decedent departed this life, insane: that claim Avas presented to 
Congress in Fifty-fifth and Fifty-sixth Congresses; that claim was 
referred to court in Fifty-sixth Congress in the name of David 
Lanaux, but it appearing that Mrs. Lanaux Avas oAvner of the prop- 
erty at time of taking the claim Avas later referred in her name in 
1905. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congi^ess. 

Joseph A. Landry. (Estelle Landrv. administratrix.) (S. D. 
196-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 23, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that decedent, Joseph A. Landry, was loyal; 
that supplies Avorth $1,320 Avere taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Jean Baptiste IjAzare. (Augustin Lazare, administrator.) 
(S. I). 125-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent Avas a colored man, who 
remained loyal: that supplies worth $697 Avere taken from him under 
proper authority. Court declines to make any finding on the item 
of five bales of cotton, stating that it does not appear Avhat Avas done 
with it. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alexander Lemelle. (Mariane T. Lemelle, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 207-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent Avas loyal; that sup- 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 91 

plies worth $565 were taken by proper authority : that daim was not 
presented to Claims Commission, bnt was first presented in Fifty- 
seventh Congress; that decedent was unable to read and write Eng- 
lish. While not reported as a fact by the court, the statement of 
case indicates that the decedent was a free colored man. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

EuPHEMiE Lemelle. (Bartlielemv Lemelle, administrator.) 
(S. D. 206-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal ; that sup- 
plies worth $1,520 were taken by proper authority: that claim was 
not presented to Southern Claims Commission, but was first presented 
in Fiftj^'-seventh CongTess; that decedent was unable to read and 
write English. While not stated in the findings, it would appear 
from the petition that the decedent was a free woman of color. 

Passed House in Sixtj^-second Congi-ess. 

Leon Lemelle. (Fiack Lemelle. administrator.) (S. D. 131- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March .2, 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds that decedent, Leon Lemelle, was loyal; that sup- 
plies worth $845 were taken by proper authority. Claim not pre- 
sented prior to presentation to Congress. While not found as a fact 
by the court, it is set forth in the statement of case that the decedent 
was a free man of color. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

RiGOBERT Lemelle. (Marianne D. Lemelle, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 384-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds Rigobert Lemelle loyal; that supplies 
wx)rth $1,106 were taken from him for Army use; that he died during 
the war, leaving a widow and several children; the widow is the 
petitioner; it is further reported that she could speak only the French 
language and was unable to read or write English. 

Passed Senate Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

BosMAN Lyons. (Mrs. Marie Melanie Broussard et al., heirs.) 
(S. D. 181-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that claimants herein. Mrs. Marie 
Melanie Broussard (widow of Bosnian Lyons), Nunez Lyons, 
Mary Azelima Simon, Mary Jane Campbell, and the decedent, Sarah 
Jane Lyons Broussard (children of Bosnian Lyons), were loyal 
throughout the war; that supplies worth $3,126 were taken from said 
persons. It is further reported as a reason for failure to earlier 
present the claim that said Mrs. Marie Melanie Broussard, the mother 
of the other claimants, was an ignorant woman and her children were 
minors of tender years. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 'and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Laura P. Maddox. (H. D. 516-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 18, 1885. Court finds that Laura P. Maddox was 
loyal; also that certain supplies were taken for Army use from her 
and two coowners (Fannie M. Wells and Ida F. Wells) ; that the 
interest therein of said Laura P. Maddox was $15,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



92 CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 

Jean Louis Malveau. (Jules Malveaii. administrator.) (S. D. 
184-()l-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports that supplies worth $375 were taken from 
a free colored family consisting- of Elizabeth Malveau, a widow, and 
her seven children, to wit. Marie, Louis. Jean P., Elizabeth, Mar- 
gueritte, Dupres, and Jules Malveau; that thej^ were all loyal. 

Court also reports that military forces took from this wddow and 
her children seven bales of cotton reasonably Avorth $1,050, but that 
it does not appear what became of the cotton. Following its general 
practice, the committee has omitted the item of cotton without preju- 
dice to its possible future consideration. 

Court reports that claim was not presented prior to presentation 
to Congress, but that the claimants were ignorant, free colored people. 

An administrator having been appointed on the estate of the father 
of this family. Jean Louis Malveau, it is believed that the appropria- 
tion may be properly made to him, rather than involve possible con- 
fusion of attempting to name all the present parties in interest. This 
will leave distribution to the local courts of Louisiana. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

OzAM D. METO-i-ER. (Achille P. Radial, administrator.) (S. D. 
495-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $960 
were taken from him for Armj^ use; also that claim was not pre- 
sented prior to presentation to Fifty-ninth Congress and that the 
claimant's decedent was an ignorant colored man. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congi-esses. 

Theophile Metoyer. (Louis V. Metover, administrator.) (S. D. 
94-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court' March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that decedent Avas loyal; that supplies worth 
$1,335 Avere taken from him for Army use; that claim Avas not pre- 
sented prior to presentation to Congress; that claimant's decedent 
was a colored man, unable to read the English language. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Alphonse Meftllon. (S. D. 403-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds that claimant 
was a free man of color, Avho remained loyal during the Avar; that 
supplies Avorth $245 Avere taken from him for Army use; that claim 
Avas not presented until 1902; that claimant is a colored man, unable 
to read or Avrite the English language, and had no knoAvledge of his 
right to present a claiui to the Claims Commission during the period 
alloAved therefor. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Francois Meihllon. (Marie Josephine Le Sassier, administra- 
trix.) (S. D. 219-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 
1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Francois Meuillon Avas 
a free man of color and loyal; that supplies worth $2,810 Avere taken 
from him by proper authority ; court declines to make any alloAvance 
on the item of cotton. Claim not presented prior to presentation to 
Congress, but claimant's decedent is found to have been a colored 
man Avho used the French language and Avas unable to speak English. 

Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 93 

LuciEX Meuillon. (Aurore D. Kerlegan, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 400-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that decedent was a free man of 
color, who remained loyal ; that supplies worth $200 were taken from 
him for Army use ; that the claim was not filed before Claims Com- 
mission; that claimant's decedent, a colored man, could not read or 
write the English language and ' understood but little of said lan- 
guage. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

George Xeck, Sr. (Emile E. Zimmer, administrator.) (S. D. 
343-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that decedent, George Neck, w^as during war 
an alien, a citizen of France, and that he was neutral ; that is all that 
can be asked on this point of an alien. Court further finds that 
supplies worth $550 were taken from decedent by proper authority ; 
also that claim was presented to French- American Claims Commis- 
sion established by treaty of 1880, but was dismissed by that commis- 
sion for lack of jurisdiction as Neck had become a citizen of the 
United States in the meantime. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Gertrude Nolasco. (S. D. 263-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court February 28, 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; also that supplies Avorth $540 were taken from her ; that claim 
was first presented to Congress. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Egbert Norris. (S. D. 611-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and 
that supplies worth $900 were taken by proper authority. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Caroline Pierront. (Auguste Guirard. administrator.) (H. D. 
334-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 3, 1911, by House 
resolution. Court finds that Caroline Pierront was a neutral for- 
eigner, which is satisfactory on this point. Court further finds that 
supplies worth $1,960 were taken from her by proper authority ; that 
claim was presented to French-American Claims Commission in 
1881, but was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on the ground that 
decedent lost her French citizenship by cession of the Department 
of Moselle by France to Germany in 1871, decedent being a native 
of that Department. Findings are accompanied by the court's con- 
clusion that the claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Adolph Hartiens (tutor of Sidney L. Hartiens et al.). (S. D. 
137_59_2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906, by Senate 
resolution; had lieen previously considered under » reference by the 
Senate of April 25, 1900. Material facts as found by the court are 
as follows: William H. Osborne, the decedent in this case, owned 
certain property in common with John Osborne as copartners ; 
United States forces took from the partnership certain supplies. 
The findings of the court are exceedingly unsatisfactory in that they 
are so drawn as to compel Congress, or committees of Congress, to 
engage in arithmetical computation in order to determine the real 



94 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

ultimate facts. However, the committee has performed duties Avhich 
should have been performed by the court, and has arrived at the 
following conclusion : 

One million ])Ounds of sugar were taken from the partnership of 
John and AVilliam H. Osborne, of the value of $90,000. One-half 
of that sum, or $45,000, belonged to the decedent in this case, Wil- 
liam H. Osborne. In addition other supplies were taken from the 
partnership of a total value of $19,750, of which William H. Osborne 
was the owner of one-half, or $9,875. 

From this it is seen that decedent's share in the value of the sugar 
taken Avas $45,000. and liis share in the other supplies taken was 
$9,875, making a total of $54,875. 

As to the item of sugar, it is expressly found by the court that it 
was loaded upon Xavy gunboats or Army transports, but the court 
states that it does not further appear what became of it, or whether 
it was issued as supplies by the Army or Navy or whether it was 
treated as abandoned and captured property and sold and proceeds 
paid into the Treasury. While, as a matter of general information, 
such facts might properly be made the subject of inquiry, it would 
appear upon the facts of the case that after the seizure of the prop- 
erty and after it had been taken away upon gnnboats or transports 
it would more properly devolve upon the Government to show what 
disposition Avas ultimately made of it than upon the claimant, who 
could not be expected to follow it. 

As to the general merits of the claim, one of the most material facts 
is found stated in the second paragraph of the accompanying opinion 
of the court rather than in the findings of fact. This material fact 
to Avliich reference is made is that the other partner, John Osborne, 
has already been paid for his half of the claim. The court fails to 
state Avhen that payment was made, but further investigation into 
facts which might properly have been set forth by the court shows 
that this claim Avas included in the omnibus claims appropriation 
act approved March 3, 1899 (30 Stats., 1190), in the following 
language : 

To Mrs. Belle Osborne, executrix of .John Osborne, deceased, late of Alex- 
andria, La., for susar and stores and supplies, .$.M,8T5. 

It will therefore be seen that one partner has been paid $54,875, 
and, unless some objection appears, it Avould seem that the other 
partner shoidd l)e paid the same amount. The amount payable is 
therefore fixed by the committee as $54,875. 

It is further reported that the claim Avas not prosecuted before the 
Southern Claims Commission, but in the same finding it is stated 
that William H. Osliorne, the decedent, died December 2, 1865, leav- 
ing surviving him his Avidow, Mrs. Mary L. Duvol Osborne, and one 
child, JMary Corinne Osborne, then less than 1 year cf age. It 
appears that in 1808 this AvidoAv remarried Henry H. Rogers, and that 
she died in 187?. The death of the former AvidoAv of William H. 
Osborne left his only child, Mary Corinne Osborne, as the sole surviA^- 
ing heir. When, by act of March 3, 1873, Congress abrogated the 
right to present claims to the Southern Claims Commission, this child 
could not have been more than 9 years of age according to the find- 
ing of tlie court. That Avoidd surely seem to be a complete excuse 
for any failure on her part to follow up a remedy at that time, espe- 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAIST AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 95 

ciall}^ when the remedy was taken away from her when she was but 
9 years old. 

The further findings of the court show that this child, Mary 
Corinne Osborne, married in 1887, and died in 1892, leaving surviving 
her as her heirs three minor children, to wit, Sidney L. Hartiens, 
William W. Hartiens, and Mary E. Hartiens, who are thus shown to 
be the grandchildren and only heirs of William H. Osborne, deceased. 
These three minors have appeared through their tutor, Adolph Hart- 
iens, Avho is apparently also their father. 

For reasons stated the committee believes that appropriation should 
be made to Adolph Hartiens. tutor of the three minors mentioned, in 
the sum of $54,875. 

This claim for the amount now proposed to be paid passed the 
Senate in the Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alfred C. Parham et al. (H. D. 62G-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court January 10, 1907. . The material facts appearing from the 
findings in this case seem to be — 

Harvey X. Parham was the original owner of a plantation : during 
his lifetime supplies worth $300 were taken from him; he is found 
loyal, and his estate is now represented by Alfred C. Parham, admin- 
istrator. 

After the death of Harvey N. Parham, and while title to the prop- 
erty stood in his widow and other heirs, i. e., Euphrasie Parham, 
Amelia Parham, Alfred C. Parham, and Corinne B. Parham, the 
United States forces took supplies from said widow and children of 
an aggregate value of $1,820; the widow and certain children are also 
found loyal. 

In this case the court has very properly stated explicitly the in- 
terests of the various parties, as follow^s: Alfred C. Parham, admin- 
istrator of Harvey X. Parham, $300; Alfred C. Parham, administra- 
tor of Mrs. Euphrasie Parham, $1,040; Alfred C. Parham, adminis- 
trator of Amelia E. Smith (formerly Parham). $2G0; Alfred C. Par- 
ham. in his own right, $260; Corinne B. Mcliight (formerly Par- 
ham), $260. The interest of William B. Parham, one of the heirs 
of Harvey N. Parham, has not been considered, as he was found not 
loyal. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj'^-second Congresses. 

Michael Rubi. (H. D. 309-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
March 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal ; that he was the owner of 
a building near Donaldsonville, which was torn down by United 
States forces for Army use ; that said forces also took a horse from 
him, and building materials for use in building a fort and winter 
quarters; that total value of the building torn down, of the building 
material, and of the horse is $1,980. It is further reported that the 
<?laim was duly presented to the Southern Claims Commission, but 
no decision on the merits was rendered by said commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Schwartzenburg. (Oliver Schwartzenburg. administra- 
tor.) (S. D. 172-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supj)lies 



96 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Avorth $4,720 were taken by proper aiithorit}^; that claim Avas first 
presented to Congress in 1884 and was referred to the court under 
the Bowman Act. beinof dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Findings 
are accompanied by a conchision that the claim is an equitable one. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Jacixtha Strother (for herself and as administratrix of Joseph 
T. Strother.) (S. D. 239-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 
20, 1897. by Senate resolution. Court finds that Jacintha Strother 
and Joseph T. Strother were loyal; that supplies worth $4,000 were 
taken from Jacintha Strother and supplies worth $2,750 Avere taken 
from Joseph T. Strother, the deceased husband, of whose estate she 
is administratrix. Court finds that claim was not presented to 
Claims Commission; that claimant's husband died in 1866, before 
existence of said commission ; that present claimant, after the com- 
mission had been established, sent the claim to a lawyer to be pre- 
sented and supposed that the claim had been filed; being informed 
that, under the rules established, it would be necessary for her to 
bring her AA'itnesses to Washington to testify, and haA'ing no means 
of bearing the expense of so doing, she then abandoned the claim. 

Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Arthur Tayix)r (surviving partner of Arthur Tavlor and Louis 
Taylor.) (S. D. 30-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 
1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds that Arthur Taylor and his 
deceased partner, Louis Taylor, were loyal and that supplies worth 
$787 Avere taken from them for Army use. Claim not previously 
presented. While not reported by the court in its findings, it is 
alleged in the petition that claimant is a colored man and that his 
former partner was his father. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Delphine a. Taylor and Marie C. Quays, Executrix Philip D. 
Quays. (S. D. 128-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 
1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds that supplies worth $4,895 
were taken from Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, Philip D. Quays, and Mrs. 
Delphine A. Tajdor. It further finds that Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor 
was not loyal, but that Mrs. Amy A. Taylor and Philip D. Quays 
Avere loyal, by reason of tender years during war. 

The interest of Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor must, therefore, be elimi- 
nated from present consideration. The elimination of one-third of 
the total value of supplies taken means elimination of $1,631.66. Ap- 
propriation should therefore be made to Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, loyal 
owner, for $1,631.66 and to the executrix of Philip D. Quays in the 
same sum. Marie C. Quays appears as such executrix. 

In the Sixty-second Congress, in a report in another body, it was 
objected that it did not appear Avhether Marie C. Quays was loyal 
or disloyal. That has nothing to do Avith the claim, as she appears 
in the present case only as executrix of Philip D. Quays, and he has 
been found loyal. It Avas further objected that no administration 
appears to have been had and that it is not stated that the three 
persons above mentioned oAvned the property. If the findings are 
read reasonably, they can mean nothing else than that these three 
persons. Mrs. Delphine A. Ta3dor, Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, and Philip 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 97 

D. Quays, were the owners of the property. The exact words of 
the finding are that the miUtary forces, by proper authority, "-took 
from the chiimants " property, etc. It is to be presumed that the 
court intended Congress to act upon its findings, and that it would 
not have made any such finding unless evidence of ownership had 
been adduced. 

I'assed the Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Richard Terrill. (Cornelius F. Terrill et al., heirs.) (S. D. 
279-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 4, 1900, by Senate 
resolution. The reported facts in brief are as follows : 

The decedent resided during the war in the city of New Orleans 
and was neutral, doing nothing for or against either side during 
that war. About June 15, 1862, United States forces took posse&sion. 
of certain real estate belonging to Terrill, in the city of New Orleans, 
as abandoned property, and held same until about September 15, 

1863, when same was turned over by military authorities to the 
Treasury Department and held by it until about December 15, 1863, 
when it was restored to Terrill. For the period between September 
15, 1863, and December 15, 1863, i. e., while premises Avere held by 
Treasury Department, Terrill was paid $2,841.63. He then gave his 
receipt wherein it was recited that he released the Government from 
any claim for damages, use, and occupation. 

The restoration of premises to Terrill by Treasury Department, 
on December 15, 1863, seems to have been only on paper, as it is 
further found that the military forces continued to occupy the prem- 
ises till about June 1, 1865. From December 15, 1863, to June 1, 

1864, the Government paid Terrill rent at $500 per month, leaving' 
one year of occupation for Avhich no payment was made, i. e., from 
June 1, 1864, to June 1, 1865, at $500 per month, or a total of $6,000 
for the year, which includes the incidental damages. 

It is an historical fact that in May, 1862, Gen. B. F. Butler issued 
a proclamation to the citizens of New Orleans, promising that their 
rights of property would be held inviolate unless they committed, 
some overt act of disloyalty. The finding of the court that this man 
remained neutral shows that he did not violate the terms of that 
proclamation. If the Government is to fulfill the promises made by 
that proclamation then this claim should be paid. It was upon this 
theory that the Senate and House have apparently both acted previ- 
ously in considering this claim. ' 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charlton B. Tucker and Louisa Tucker Leforte. (S. D. 
10-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 15, 1897, by Senate 
resolution. The findings are rather complicated, but the material 
facts for present consideration are as follows: 

J. W. Tucker and his wife, Marcelline Tucker, owned a planta- 
tion prior to the war in community, each owning one-half. In 1853 
said J. W. Tucker died intestate leaving surviving him his said 
widow and six children. Before beginning of the war the widow, 
Mrs. Marcelline Tucker, married Caleb Tucker, by whom she had 
19855— H. llept. 97, 63-2 7 



I 



98 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

« 

one child, ncnv Louisa Tucker Leforte. Said Mrs. Marcelline Tucker 
also died before coniniencement of the war. 

Federal troops took from these surviving children of J. W. Tucker 
and also from said Louisa Tucker Leforte, as surviving heir of her 
mother, supplies of a total value of $63,330 for Army use. 

The onl}' owners who are found to have been loyal are Charlton 
B. Tucker and said Louisa Tucker Leforte, found loyal b}^ reason 
of tender years. The share of said Charlton B. Tucker, as heir of 
both his father and his mother, was two-thirteenths, or $9,743. The 
share of Louisa Tucker Lefort, by inheritance from her mother only, 
was one-thirteenth, or $4,871. 

The claim was not presented to the Claims Commission ; the 
claimant, Louisa Tucker Leforte, was a minor during period that 
commission was open, having been born al)0ut 1858. The claim was 
placed by other heirs in the hands of counsel as early as 1870, and 
thereafter all papers were destroyed by fire. 

As to the interests of these two loyal children the claim should 
obviously be paid, Charlton B. Tucker taking $9,743 and his half- 
sister, Louisa Tucker Leforte, taking $4,871. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

RoMAiN VERorN, (J. B. Verdun, jr., administrator.) (S. D. 
490_()l-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April '20, 1904. by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth $7,71.") 
were taken for Army use; that claim was presented to Congress in 
1887 and referred to court in 188,S by Conunittee on AVar Claims 
under- Bowman Act; that testimony was taken under that reference, 
but the court was without jurisdictictn, and that claim was dis- 
missed; thereafter claim was presiMited to the Fifty-sixth and later 
Congresses. While the court has not stated it in its findings of fact, 
it is alleged in the petition that the rlecedent was a freeman of color. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Adolph Veuret. (James A. Verret, administrator.) (S. I). 21- 
58-2.) Tucker Act. This claim was first sent to court under Bow- 
man Act and was considered on issue of loyalty as early as 1892 ; the 
finding was e(jui vocal on loyalty, and that case Avas dismissed. Feb- 
ruary 14, 1901. claim was referred under Tucker Act by Senate reso- 
lution, under which later reference it has been tried. 

The facts of this case being unusual, they are here given at greater 
length than in the ordinary claims. 

This claim was presented to and rejected by the Southern Claims 
Commission, as shown by page 241 of index of such claims. It was 
referred to court under Bownum Act and was tried on loyalty. The 
finding then made by the court was unusual, being as follows: 

This case beiiis a claim for supitlios or stores iille;itHl to liiive been tnken by 
or fiirnisbed to the niililary forces of the United States for their nse dining the 
hite war for the suppression of the rel)eIlion, the court, on a preliminary in- 
quiry, linds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Adolph \erret, the 
person alleged to have furnished such supi)lies or stores, or from whom they are 
alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the (Jovornment of the United States 
throughout said war, and the case is dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. 

The claimant was elected to the conventicn which passed the ordinance of 
secession as a Union delegate, and while a nieniber of that convention he exerted 
his influence to prevent the passage of the ordinance of secession, but signed 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 99 

the ordinance under protest. After the roniniencenieut of the war. hi the year 
1862, he was appointed sheriff of his parisJi by Gen. Butler. He did nothing to 
assist the Confederacy after the war conunenced, but. on the contrary, exerted 
himself for the Government of the United States. Signing the ordinance of 
secession was prior to the proclamation of the President on the 15th of April, 
]861. 

The claim Avas thereupon dismissed l)y the cotirt for lack of further 
jurisdiction, the finding not being exj:)]icitly favorable on the issue of 
loyalty. The claim was later referred to court under Tucker Act by 
Senate resolution Feliruary 14, 1001. When -tried under that refer- 
ence the court merely reiterated its ])revious findings on loyalty and 
reported supplies were taken from decedent for Army use reasonably 
worth $4.0GT. 

The only question presented in this case is whether the claim shotild 
be paid, notwithstanding the qualified finding as to loyalty. After 
careful consideration the committee is of opinion the claim should 
be paid. 

It will be noted that Verret was elected as a Union delegate to the 
State convention to consider the question of secession, and while a 
member of that convention exerted himself to prevent the passage of 
the ordinance of secession, but after its adoption performed the 
merely formal act of authentication of signing the ordinance '' under 
protest." 

That action might properly be likened to the signing by the 
Speaker of the House of a bill that had been passed by vote of the 
House, but of which the Speaker himself disapproved. When Verret 
affixed his name to the ordinance of secession it had already been 
adopted by the convention, and, as reported by the court, A-^erret con- 
tinued to show his opposition by signing his name " under protest." 

It is therefore plain that Yerret's act contributed nothing to the 
attempted secession of Louisiana, but merely registered his con- 
tinued protest against the attempt to secede. 

The remainder of the finding of the court shows that when Gen. 
Butler assumed command of the se_ction in which Verret lived (in 
1862) he appointed Verret sheriff of his parish; that Verret did 
nothing to assist the Confederacy during the war, " but, on the con- 
trary, exerted himself for the Government, of the United States." 

One thought is brought out prominently by the findings of fact 
in this case, and that is : If all the men of the South had acted as 
did this man there would have been no secession, and even after 
attempted secession there would have been no war. 

The committee finds it difficult to accoimt for the failure of the 
court to report in this case, as an ultimate fact, that this man was 
aotuallj^ and affirmatively loyal. It wotild seem that the couii: wished 
Congress to assume the responsibility of finally passing upon this 
question, considering the findings of the court rather in the nature of 
a special verdict including probative facts rather than ultimate 
facts. 

The Committee on War Claims of the Sixty-second Congress de- 
cided and reported in favor of payment of this claim, and its action 
was approA'ed by the House, the claim being included in H. R. 19115, 
Sixty-second Congress. 

The present committee coincides in its opinion of the claim with 
that of the former committee, and has for that reason included the 



100 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

claim ill the hill presented for the jiul*inient of the House, believino- 
the clniiii to he entitled to even unusual consideration in view of 
Verret's aflirinative activity for the cause of th^ Federal (lovern- 
ment durino- the war. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Jtt>itii Vincent Sole Heiii of A^felia Oltviei? Dklii.le. (S. D. 
13r)-f)2-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court ^March 3, 1905. hv Senate 
resolution. C\)urt finds that Mrs. Judith Vincent, the claimant, and 
her mother, Amelia Olivier Delille, were loyal; that supplies were 
taken from claimant and her mother for Army use worth $875. It 
appears from alleofations in the petition that these women were free 
women of color durino- the war. If that is a fact it should have been 
specifically found hy the c( urt as one of the facts. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Cono-ress. 

Henry Von Hoeen. (diaries S. Yon Hofen, administrator.) 
(H. 5(V2-()0-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court Auo-ust (5, 1888. Court 
finds decedent loyal and that sujjplies worth $!)io were taken from 
him for Army use. Chiim was presented to Claims Commission and 
appears on i)age 240 of index, though hy clerical error it is giten in 
the index as Henry Van Hofen. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel N. WnrrE. (Elizabeth White, administratrix.) (S. D. 
258-55-2.) Tucker Act. This claim originally jn-esented to South- 
ern Claims Commission: referred to court first February 12, 1887, 
under Bowman Act; decedent found loyal in 1892, under"that refer- 
ence, but court in 1893 found adversely to claimant on merits. July 
17, 1897, claim again sent to court under Tucker Act. by Senate reso- 
lution. 

This is an unusual case, and has been given special study on that 
account. Two items are involved, i. e. : 

Sugar and uiolasses «4 jqq 

Use steamboat Red Chief, 825 days 23' iqo 

27, 800 
No peculiar question arises as to the sugar and molasses, found to 
have been taken aAvay on the transport Essex. The court savs it 
does not appear what was ultimately done with the sugar amf mo- 
lasses; but its taking, evidently by proper authority, is shown, as well 
as its value. AVhite obviously could not follow his property to see 
what was done Avith it. There seems no question as to this 'item of 
sugar and molasses, therefore. 

As to the item of use of steamboat, the facts are as follow\s: 
White owned the steamboat Bed Chief; she was seized in 1863 by 
United States military forces and was used by them thereafter, 
nhite brought suit in United States court for eastern district of 
Louisiana and secured a decree of restitution. The United States 
appealed and secured an order that the ai)peal act as a supersedeas- 
the appeal was never perfected or heard by any other court, so the 
only court decision ever rendered was to theeffect that White was enti- 
tled to possession of his boat. Meanwhile the Government continued 
to use his boat until about October 12, 18G5— long after actual close of 
the war. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 101 

In October, 1805, the Government, having- no further use for the 
boat, sold it at auction for $7,000. White thereafter asked relief at 
the hands of the Secretary of War.- At first his rights were AvhoUy 
denied; but on March 14, 1866, Secretary Stanton ordered that White 
be paid the $7,000 secured from the sale of the boat, stating the boat 
had been sold " by mistake.'' 

March 16, 1866, the $7,000 was paid White and he was called upon 
to sign a certain voucher, evidently prepared for him by the Quar- 
termaster's Department. Said voucher, signed by White, read as 
follows : 

The United States to vS. X. White. Dr. : 

March 16, 1S66. To reinibnrseiuent of the proceeds of the sale of the steninev 
Red Chief No. 1, by the United States Quartermaster's Department, at jM(thile, 
Ala., on the 12th of October, is6."t, it being at the time the property of this said 
Samuel N. White, which reimbursement is in lieu of the boat and in full pay- 
ment and release for all claims by said Samuel N. White on the United States 
Government or its officers on account of said boat, and this said reimburse- 
ment "being in full accord and satisfaction for all claims against the United 
States and its officers for said boat or its value," .$7,000. 

See subvouchers attached — two in number, as furnished from Quartermaster 
General's office March 16, 1866. 

I certify that the above account is correct, and that it has been made in 
triplicate and read over carefully to the claimant. Samuel N. White, in the pres- 
ence of the attesting witnesses, and that he. in their presence, accepted the sum 
of $7,000 in full of all claims by him against the United States or its officers 
on account of the steamer Red Chief No. 1. 

J. C M. Ferran, 
Major, Quartermaster, Brevet Colonel. U. »s; A. 

Received at Washington, D. C. the 16th of March, 1S66, of P,\t. Col. J. C. M. 
Ferran, quartermaster. United States Army, the sum of $7,000 and — cents, 
in full of the above account, in check No. 26. on the First Xational Bank of 
Washington, D. C, payable to S. N. White or bearer, for $7,000. 

S. N. White. 

Witnesses : 

W. M. Macrae. 
C A. Thorn. 

The court has found that the Government used this boat 825 days, 
and that at then current rates being paid by the Quartermaster's 
Department, the boat was worth $28 per day, or a total of $23,100 
for the entire period of its use. 

There is no question as to the use of the boat during this period. 
Neither is there any question that, as an actual fact. White never \yas 
paid for that use. The only question is Avhether or not, by signing 
the voucher above set forth, White estopped himself from making any 
claim for such use of his boat. This is a question not wholly free 
from doubt, and is one primarily of law, to be determined by general 
legal principles. If general principles of law do not preclude White 
from making this claim, then it should be ])aid on the facts stated. 

AVhile the terms " accord and satisfaction " are used in the voucher 
quoted, their application must be restricted to claims mentioned in 
that voucher. Careful scrutiny of the voucher shows no claim for 
use or rent or charter value of the boat to be mentioned therein. In 
order that an agreement of accord and satisfaction shall be binding 
by way of estoppel, there must be something in dispute, something in 
controversy. 

So far as appears from that voucher, the only controversy was 
whether White was entitled to anything arising from the sale of the 
boat, or was entitled, possibly, to "the actual value of the boat rather 



102 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

than to the proceeds of the forced sule at auction. The receipt o;iven 
would, in opinion of the committee, prechide consideration of a chiim 
now for tlie value of the boat, or' for the ditference between its value 
and the $7,000 received ; but the committee perceives no fact or legal 
principle which estops assertion of this present claim for the rental 
or use of the boat for the 82o da_ys. 

From aught appearing in the findings and history of this claim, 
no claim for use or rental of the boat was presented by White to the 
"War Department. From that it Avould follow that no claim for use 
or rent of the boat could have been within the contemplation of the 
Secretar)' of War or of AVhite when the payment of $7,000 was made. 

In case of Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham (141 U. S., 
564), it was stated: 

If there be a bona fide dispute as to the ainoiint due. such dispute may be the 
subject of a compromise and payment of a certain sum as a satisfaction of the 
entire claim, but where the larjier s\nn is admitted tf) be due, or tlie circum- 
stances of the case show that there was no good reason to doubt tliat it was 
due, the release of the whole ui)on payment of ]iart will not be considered as a 
compromise, but will be treated as without consideration and void. 

In case of San Juan v. St. Johns Gas Co. (195 U. S., 564). it was 
said: 

True it is as pointed out in Fire Insurance Association r. Wickham (141 
U. S.. 564), it must appear that the alleged dispute really existed and did not 
arise merely from an arbitrary denial by one party of an obligation which was 
obviously due. 

The case of Pratt v. United States (3 C. Cls. Rept., 105) involved 
practically the same question. Pratt had signed a certain receipt 
or voucher for rent of a steamboat at rate of $100 per day, though 
he claimed $200 per day as per terms of original charter. After re- 
ceiving the sum of $100 per day. Pratt brought suit and recovered 
judgment for the remaining $100 per day. There Government 
counsel contended claimant was estopped by his receipt, but the court 
said: 

The words " in full of the above account." uiion which the solicitor relies to 
maintain his position, should be restricted to the subject matter on which they 
were to operate, and that was "the above account." 

They are not like words of release standing alone without reference to any 
specific matter to be taken most strongly against the releasor and not liable to 
explanation by extrinsic evidence, but they constitute merely a receipt of the 
particular account to which they are subscribtnl, and a receipt of that character 
is always open to explanation. 

It is the judgment of the committee that fair dealing requires the 
Government to pay this claim in the total amount of $27,800. 

This claim passed the Senate in this full amount in the Sixtieth 
and Sixty-fii-st Congresses, and passed the House in same amount 
in Sixty-second Congress. The items of sugar and molasses also 
passed the House in Sixty-first Congress. 

Both Houses of Congress have therefore heretofore approved pay- 
ment of the entire claim. 

William R. Wimbish. (Frederick T. Wimbish, administrator.) 
(S. D. 89-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth 
$5,100 were taken from him for Army use; that the claim herein 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 103 

was presented by decedent to Gen. Canby, whose headquarters were 
in New Orleans: that claimant was informed that his papers had 
been lost by Gen. Canb}' in moving from one hieadquarters to another. 
It would appear that the claim must have been presented either 
during or immediately after the close of the Civil War. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Plains Lodge No. 135, Free and Accepted Masons, East Baton 
Rouge Parish, La. (S. D. 27-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
also that it owned the second story of a certain building, used for 
lodge purposes; that the Ignited States forces tore it down and used 
material therefrom, together with furniture; that the interest of the 
lodge in the building torn down and value of furniture taken amount 
to $700. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Juda Touro Almshouse Fund of New Orleans, La. (S. D. 336- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 12, 1906. Court finds that 
claimant corporation was loyal; that the corporation owned an 
almshouse building, partly completed in August, 1862 ; that premises 
Avere occupied as mustering headquarters by order of Gen. Butler, 
and later used as a recruiting depot for colored troops. It would 
appear that Federal forces completed the building and made certain 
improvements thereto, partly for purely military purposes, at a 
total expense of $19,000. September 1, 1865, while in possession of 
the military authorities, the building was destroyed by fire; the 
reasonable rental value of the premises during the period of its oc- 
cupation by the Federal authorities was $21,000, which the court 
remarks is $28,000 less than the Government had expended in the 
completion and repair of the building. 

It is further found that the reasonable value of the building in- 
cluding expenditures made by the Government thereto, amounting 
to said sum of $49,000. was at time of the destruction of the build- 
ing, $94,400. 

These are the material facts. It is plain that a question arises as 
to the exact amount which should be appropriated in payment of 
this claiuL If the building was worth $94,400 when destroyed, and 
the Government had expended $49,000 in completing the unfinished 
building and in fitting it up, it would seem that the l)uilding must 
have been worth $45,400 when the Federal authorities took [)osses- 
sion, and in one view of the case that sum of $45,000 might be 
adopted as the measure of compensation. 

However, the claim ])assed the Senate in the Sixtieth and Sixty- 
first Congresses, and ])assed the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses simply foi' the rental value, i. e., $21.0(X), and that 
propcsed appropriation and dis]3osition of the claim having been 
already approved twice by both Houses of Congress the (M)mmittee 
has included the claim in that amount. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



104 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

MAINE. 

jAcor, n. I^)KiN(;. (H. D. :^4()-()0-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim tor ditierence in pay. $14iS.2'). 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-secx)nd Con^rresses. 

AViiiTMAN L. Oiui-rr. (H. I). ."SSl-r^D-^.) Bo\a man Act. Officer's 
chiim for ditierence in ])ay, $878.47. 

Passed Senate in Sixtietli and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

AVii.LiAM L. Koss. (H. I). -ilO-oO-^.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $47.r)(>. 

, Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

MARYLAND. 

Jacob IJ. Adams. ( H. I). 17r)-,58-?).) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January HO, 1885. Court finds chiimant loyal, and that supplies 
worth $210 were taken for Army u.se. Havino- bpen tried under 
Bowman Act, claim must have been presented to Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Conaresscs. 

Mai{T[n H. Avky. (S. I). :U4-()l-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, 
and that supplies worth $025 were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Mayor and CrrY Council f)F Baltimore. {H, D. 9()1-C1-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court June 7, 1890. Court reports on or about 
October 1, 18(U. United States, by permission in writing from mayor 
of ]>altimore City, took possession of city parks and occui)ied same 
until about Octcber 27. ISOr). as camping jilaces for troops. The 
written permit provided that the (Tovernment should pay the city 
such damages as might result from such use and occupation. Court 
furtlur fixes such damage at $2,99().94. Xo claim is made for rent 
at all. It would seem that, in taking possession of the premises of 
a city in a loyal State, under a written ]->ermit, the (xovernment prac- 
tically assented to the conditions contained in such permit. It is 
true the court has not expressly found the city of Baltimore, as a 
nninicipal cori)orati(;iL to have been loyal, but Congress surely may 
take cognizance of the fact thai Baltimore is n municipality of the 
State of Maryland, which State never seceded. The legal i)resumption 
is in favor of loyalty therefore. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec ond Congresses. 

Alfred C Belt. (Elizabeth V. Belt, administratrix.) (S. D. 
59-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May C). 1904, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that supi)lies were taken from him 
for Army use: also that the forces occupied a house on decedent's 
farm for hospital purposes for about two years. The final fact found 
is that the reasonable value of the supplies taken and the rental 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 105 

value of premises occupied was $2,970. It further appears that a 
claim for the supplies was presented to the Quartermaster General. 
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas Bevans. (A. Rcsa Bevans. sole heir.) (H. D. 1108-G1-3.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 10, 1910. Court finds dece- 
dent loyal; that supplies worth $570 were taken for Army use; that 
claim first presented to Quartermaster General ; was apj^arently 
first sent to court in 1890 under Bowman Act, and loyalty found 
under that reference, and then case dismissed for want of prosecu- 
tion. The subsequent reference obviously reinstated the case before 
the court, and no reason appears why claim should not be now paid. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hezekiah Boteler. (William E. Boteler, administrator.) (H. D. 
16G-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 13, 1900. Court 
finds decedent loyal and that military forces took supplies worth $568. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixly-fii-st, and 
Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Henry T. Deaver. (H. D. 716-02-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
February 1, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; troojjs. by proper au- 
thority, took supplies from claimant and occupied his farm in Mary- 
land for military purposes. Court finds value of supplies taken and 
rental value of premises amount to $1,925. Claim was certified too 
late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

Thomas N. Gott. (Richard T. Gott and Benjamin X. Gott, ex- 
ecutors.) (S. D. 32-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 29, 
1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and that his 
farm in Maryland was used at various times by United States forces 
for camping and drilling purposes, the rental value being $1,200. 
Was placed in hands of counsel as early as 1877 and presented to 
Fifty-sixth and later Congresses. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Henry N. Harris. (Mrs. Maria M. Harris et al.. heirs.) (S. D. 
123-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth 
$303.25 were taken for Army use in ^Montgomery County, Md. ; that 
in December, 1879. Harris executed a petition and placed same in 
hands of counsel for filing, but that it was not filed till February, 
1880, too late for consideration by Quartermaster (jeneral. Harris 
died since the war and left various heirs whose individual shares in 
the amount allowed are stated by the court. The explicit findings of 
all material facts in this claim might well be adopted as a model. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Harmon W. Hessen. (S. D. 371-00-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal. On proj^erty it finds that Ignited States forces occupied 
claimant's dwelling one year and incidentally damaged it, the rental 
value and damages amounting to $200. 



106 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 
*. 

It is also found that claimant did a large amount of blacksmith 
work. Avagon rei)air Avork, furnished materials on such work, etc., 
all to the amount of $1,835, Avhich added to the item of rent, makes 
total sum of $2.03r) due him. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

John L. T. Jones. (Cornelia Jones, administratrix.) (S. D. 
96-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under BoAvman Act 
and claimant then found loyal but claim rejected on property 
for lack of sufficient evidence. Later sent to court under Tucker 
Act by Senate resolution, May 6, 19(>i. Court finds supplies Avorth 
$240 to have been taken for Army use. Claim originally filed Avith 
Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jeremiah Kanode. (H. D. 199-('.0-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February IH. 1900. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies Avortli $13() Avere taken for Army- use. Having been tried under 
BoAvman Act, claim must have been filed Avith Quartennaster 
General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

loNATH^s J. Langley. ( Marv J. Langlev-Norris, administratrix.) 
(H.D. 390-00-1.) Bowman Act. Sent'to "court May 8, 1906. Court 
finds claimant loyal and that claimant furnished pasturage to Army 
stock, Avhich pasturage Avas Avorth $1,050. Having been tried under 
Bowman Act, claim must have been filed Avitli Quartermaster 
(ieneral. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

AViLLiAM P. Leamax. (Raleigh Sherman, administrator.) (H. D. 
543-59-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court February 8, 188(). Court 
finds claimant loyal and that supplies Avorth $590 Avere taken for 
Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixt3'-second Congresses. 

Richard T. Mitcheel. (Sarah C. Mitchell, executrix.) (S. D. 
655-(50-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 6, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal and supplies Avorth $1,200 
were taken for Army use. Court further finds that claim was 
placed in hands of counsel about 1870, and counsel stated claim had 
been filed Avith Quartennaster General, but no such claim is now 
found there; that claim Avas referred to court under BoAvman Act 
February 20, 1885, but court dismissed same for Avant of jurisdiction 
under that act. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Eei Moats. (William H. Staubs. administrator.) (S. D. 654-60-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 29, 1906, bv Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies worth $381 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 107 

were taken from him ; that claims covering same pro}:)erty were filed 
with Quartermaster General. Claim might have been referred under 
Bowman Act, therefore. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Augustine D. O'Leary. (S. Sellers Maynard, executor.) (S. D. 
198-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth 
$1,450 were taken for Army use; also that the claim was presented to 
Quartermaster General. Claim might have been referred under 
Bowman Act. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William D. Poole. (J. Sprigg Poole, administrator de bonis 
non.) (H. D. 757-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 
26, 1895. Court finds decedent loyal and that United States forces 
occupied his farm in Montgomery County, Md., for camping and 
drilling purposes; that the rental value with damages incident to 
such use, was $1,000. Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Urias D. Ramsburg. (Elmer K. Ramsburg and Alvah S. Eams- 
burg, executors.) (S. D. 710-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 29, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and 
that his farm was used for pasturage of Government stock, and that 
nearly 55 tons of hay were used also; that the value of such occupa- 
tion for i^asturage and of hay consumed is $819; that claim was duly 
presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Reverdy a. Rennoe. (Perrv Rennoe, administrator.) (H. D. 
647-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 19, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal and materials were taken by troops from certain build- 
ings for their use, said materials being worth ^200. It is set forth in 
petition that claim was presented to Quartermaster General, and fact 
that court tried it under Bowman Act so shows. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Hester Ann Ridout. (Zachariah D. Ridout, executor.) (11. D. 
36-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court ISIay 13, 1886. Court finds 
decedent loyal and reports facts on property substantially as follows: 

Timber was cut from certain land in Maryland, under proper au- 
thority, which timber was worth $3,800. The land was then in pos- 
session of Hester Ann Chase, life tenant, the remaindermen being her 
nieces. Hester Ann Ridout, Frances Chase, and Matilda Chase. All 
four are found loyal. It appears that Hester Ann Ridout survived 
the life tenant and the other two remaindermen, thereby inheriting 
the property and becoming owner of the claim, as taking of timber 
was a loss to the fee estate rather than merely of the estate of the life 
tenant. It is true that the claim might, perhaps, have been appor- 
tioned between the life tenant and the remaindermen, but that would 
appear immaterial, and it seems that Hester Ann Ridout, or her 
estate, would be the sole party in interest. Her estate being properly 



108 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

« 

represented, and as distribution of the amount appropriated will 
doubtless be made under suj^ervision of the i)r()per Maryland court, 
there seems no objection to payment of the claim to her surviving- 
executor, who appeared before the Court of Claims. Claim was pre- 
sented to Quartermaster (leneral. 

Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry Show. (Nathan F. Edmonds, administrator.) (S. D. 320- 
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first under I)(>wman Act April 
20. 1888; later sent to court under Tucker Act by Senate resolution 
April 26, 1904. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth 
$225 were taken for Army use, for which he has not been paid. The 
court mentions certain payments made to him for other supplies; but 
those payments are here iunuaterial and have nothing to do Avith the 
claim Avhich it is now i)roposed to pay. Claim Avas presented to 
Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Georof Sntoer. (John L. Snyder, executor.) (H. I). 198-60-1.) 
BoAvmau Act. Sent to court January 30, 1885. Court finds deceden/^ 
loyal and that his interest in sup])lies taken from him for Army use 
Avas Avorth $1,800. It Avould appear that he Avas a farm tenant and 
entitled to half the grain raised, and owned individually other sup- 
plies taken. Being tried under BoAvman Act, claim must have been 
presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

George L. Stutx. (H. D. 416-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 13, 1900. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies Avorth $200 were taken from him for xA.rmy use. Being tried 
under BoAvman Act claim must have been presented to Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Elijah Thompson. (William Yiers Bouic, administrator.) (S. D. 
115-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 2, 1900, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies AVorth $1,386 
Avere taken from him for Ai'my use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Cornelius ViRTS. (H. D. 38-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal and that United States 
forces occupied his farm in Washington County, Md., from July, 
1863, to July, 1865; that reasonable rental of 115 acres during that: 
period Avas $600. 

Passed vSenate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph Waltman. (William W. Wenner, executor.) (H. D. 
224-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 15, 1886. Court 
finds decedent loyal and also that certain supplies were taken from 
him for Army use, and that United States forces also occupied cer- 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 109 

tain real estate of decedent from August, 1801, to May, 18G5; that 
total value of supplies taken and of occupancy of the land is $3,270. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Lewis W, Williams. (Lewis D. Williams, administrator.) 
(H. D. 323-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 19, 1888. 
Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $385 were taken 
from him for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Zachariah L. Windsor. (John A. Windsor, administrator.) 
(S. D. 24r>-(;i-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 14, 1896. 
Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $372 were taken 
for Army use. Claim was presented to Quartermaster General. 

Pased House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Frederick Wyand. (Grant Wyand, executor.) (S. D. 240-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 10. 1909, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal ; also that United States forces occupied 
certain premises of decedent and took from him certain supplies 
enumerated in the petition ; that rental value and value of supplies 
taken aggregate $135. Claim was presented in 1873 to Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel C. Youno. (Marion B. Young and Geno D. Weller, heirs.) 
(H. D. 39-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 1907. 
Court finds decedent loyal, and that United States forces, by proper 
autliority, occupied certain described real estate belonging to him 
in Montgomery County, Md., and that reasonable rental value was 
$407. Claim is stated in petition to have been presented to Quar- 
termaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

La Grange Lodge No. 36, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, 
BooNSBORO, Md. (S. D. 180-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
also that United States forces occupied lodge building for hospital 
and damaged same; that rental value with damages in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear was $370. Claim presented to Quartermaster 
General in 1873. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Boonsboro, Md. (S. D. 
a47__r)0_l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolutioai. Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States 
forces occupied church building for hospital about two months and 
damaged same; that rental value, with damages in excess of ordi- 
nary wear and tear, is $120. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

United Brethren Church, Boonsboro, ISId. (S. D. 295-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 



110 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

• 

Court finds claiinant. loyal: also tliat Uiiited States forces occupied 
churcli huildino- for hospital about three months: that rental value, 
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $170. Claim 
was filed with Quartei-master (Jeneral. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Evangelical liiTHERAN Church, Burkittsville, Md. (S. D. 
24T-()0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court ^Slarch 2. 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds clainuint loyal: also that United States 
forces occupied church buildin<r for hospital, and that rental value 
durinir o<'cupation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, was $'225. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses, 

Fredeuick Presbyterian Church, Frederick, INId. (S. D. 
28.5-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court jNIarch 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court fi,nds claimant loyal: also that United States 
forces occujiied chui-ch building four months: that rental value was 
$200. no allowance being nuide for damages, they having been 
already ])ai(l. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

]Mf:t[I()dist p]piscoPAi> Church. Hancock, Md. ( S. D. 251-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal: also that Ihiited States forces occupied 
churcli building as quarters; that rental value during such occu- 
pation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. Peter's Poman Catholic Church, Hancock, ^Id. (S. D. 
21G-(U-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
xe'-olution. Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States 
forces occu])icd church as (piarters; that rental value, Avith damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear. Avas $80. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. Thomas Protestant Episcopal Church, Hancock, Md. 
(S. D. 90-C)l-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution, (^ourt finds claimant loyal: also that Ignited 
States forces occui)ied church from April 1, 1862,, to September 10, 
1862; that rental value during that period was $173.33. No allow- 
ance is made for damages, they having been paid for through the 
War Department. The claim for rent was also filed with War 
Department. 

Pa.ssed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Mount Vernon Reformed Church, Keedysville, Md. (S. D. 
212-61-2.) TiK'ker Act. Sent to court March 10, 1909, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; also that United States 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. Ill 

forces ocenjDied house of ^YOl■ship and ])r(>perty connected therewith 
for hospital; rental value, with damajies in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was $515. Claim for rent filed with Quartermaster General 
in 1.ST3. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-fiist and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Grace Reformed Church, IvNoxviLni:. Md. (S. D. 418-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March -2. lUOT, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that church building was used for a time 
as hospital and that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary 
Avear and tear, was $410. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Christ Reformed Congregation*, Middletown, Md. (S. D. 57- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that buildings belonging to 
it were used for hospital purposes; that rental value, with dauiages 
incident to the use, was $450. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Oldtown, Md. (S. D. 125-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States troops, by proper au- 
thority, tore down church building and removed materials therefrom"; 
that building was wordi $1,200. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, near Point of Rocks, 
Md. (S. D. 200-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 18, 1906, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal : that United States 
forces used church property for hospital and other purposes; that 
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
$790. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, Sharpsburg-Antie- 
TAM Parish, Md. (S. D. 86-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 
29, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that 
United States forces, by proper authority, occupied church property 
for hospital purposes: that reasonable rental value, with damages in 
excess of ordinary Avear and tear, was $1,350. Claim jn-esenecl to 
Quartermaster General in 1873 and rejected for Avant of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. Augustine's Roman Catholic Church, AYh.ll\:msport, Md. 
(S. D. 356-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied 
church as hospital: rental value, Avith damages in excess of ordinary 
Avear and tear, Avas $425. Claim certified too late for consideration 
in connection Avitli previous bills. 



112 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

:\rASSACHi SEirs. 

William W. DrrriiER. (H. D. 27:^.-00-1.) Bowman Act. Of-, 
fleer's claim for difference in pay. $457.84. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj^-second Cono;resses. 

Tho:mas B. Floaveh. (Frederick L. (rreene. administrator.) 
(S. D. 195-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution 
in April. 1900. Court finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth 
$5,5H!S were taken from decedent for Army use. From the ])etition it 
woukl appear that decedent was a resident of ^lassachusetts who 
had property in Virginia. The essential facts of loyalty, of taking 
for Army use. and of value of property are all found by the court. 

WiLLLv:^! B. KT:irRALL. (H. D. 245-C)0-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $21.84. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nathaniel Shatswell. (Susan Shatswell. executrix.) (H. D. 
218-59-2.) Officer's claim for difference in pay. $244.90. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Horace P. Williams. (H. D. 211-58-8.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court January 8. 1901. This claim is somewhat similar in prin- 
ciple to the numerous claims of officers for difference in pay due to 
their not being nnistered in as of advanced rank. 

This claimant was commissioned major by the governor of Massa- 
chusetts; he actually served from July 14. ISGS, when he was com- 
missioned, until January 7. 18U4. when he left camp on account of 
illness; he was not discharged till March 4, 1864. He had charge 
of recruiting service and also served as commandant for a time. 

When his regiment was mustered in this officer was sick and did 
not ha]:)pen to be jDresent, and the result was that he was never mus- 
tered in at all. He was denied all pay by the War Department on 
the ground that he never Avas mustered into the United States 
service. 

These facts show that he was in fact a major for 7 months and 
21 days, even though he hael not l)een formally mustered in. The 
pay of a majeu- was $208.33 per month, at which rate he would have 
received a total of $1,604.14. had he been paid at all, as of the rank 
he actually filled. 

Under these facts it would seem that this man should be paid the 
sum mentioned. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

MICHIGAN. 

William M. Begole. (Harriet C. Begole, mother.) (H. D. 589- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim foi- difference in pay, $19.33. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 113 

:\Iyrc)>- C. Bond. (H. D. 24-61-1.) BoAvnuin Act. Sent to court 
fliinuary (>, 11)08. Tliis is a claim arising from claimant's serA^ce 
(luring the War -svitli Spain. By statutes of Michigan each battalion 
(if the Michigan regiment then in United States service was entitled 
to a major. Upon resignation of the major one of tlie battalions 
of said regiment, James M. Holloway, captain of Company B. was 
commissioned by the governor to fill that vacancy and Avas mustered 
in as major March 13. 181)1>. Bond Avas second lieutenant of bin 
company : the promotion of the captain left a vacancy. Avhich Avas, 
filled by promotion of the first lieutenant, and that resulted in. 
Bond's promotion to the position of first lieutenant : he was com- 
missioned as first lieutenant by the governor of Michigan Mairh 13, 
181)1); from that date he performed the duties of first lieutenant 
under his colonel's orders until mustered out. May 17, 181)1). 

A question Avas raised as to the legality of the muster in of Maj. 
HolloAvay, and this claimant Avas refused muster by the United States^ 
mustering officers and Ava.s never mustered into the United States; 
service as first lieutenant. 

Diu'ing the period in question, i. e., March 13 to May 17. 1899, 
claiuuint received the pay of a second lieutenant, and having served 
honestly and faithfully beyond limits of United States during that 
Avar, Avas paid tAvo months* extra pay; he also received 48 days" 
travel pay from Savannah, Ga., to Adrian. Mich., at the rate of 
$llf).G7 per month, the pay of a second lieutenant. 

Had h(^ been mustered in as first lieutenant on March 13, 1809, he 
Avould have received in addition to Avhat he has received the further 
sum of $48.04. 

This may be called a companion case to that of Guv M. Claflin 
(H. D. 23-61-1) and to that of EdAvin A. Wells (H. D.' 25-61-1). 

These three claimants all served in the same company. In the 
Wells case it is expressly reported by the court that the legality of 
the muster in of said HolloAvay as major Avas subsequently recog- 
nized by the War Department. 

It is therefore plain that the refusal of the mustering officers tf> 
muster in Bond as first lieutenant Avas errcmeoits and illegal. Bone). 
Avas therefore denied pay to Avhich he Avas in laAv entitled. There is; 
no question in this case as to the command being of proper strength 
to Avarrant its having its full complement of officers. 

In vieAv of these facts this claim is included in the bill in said sum 
of $48.04. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Lkmi-fx C. Canfield. (H. D. 631-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $587.68. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

Giv M. Claflin. (H. D. ,23-61-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to 
court January 6, 1903. This is a companion case to that of Myron 
C. Bond, above mentioned. Claflin Avas first sergeant of his company 
during the Spanish War, and oAving to the promotion of the com- 
missioned officers of his comjiany Claflin Avas promoted to be second 
lieutenant, and Avas so commissioned by the governor of Michigan. 
He Avas denied nnister OAving to (|uestion as tct the legality of the 
l)romotion of HolloAvay to be major. 

l!»8r.5— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 8 



114 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Claflin performed all the duties of secon<l lieutenant from March 
13, 1899. until mustered out. May 17, 1899. 

He received the pa}^ during said period of first sergeant instead 
of that of second lieutenant. As in the Bond case, it is plain that 
this man was refused muster in as second lieutenant, to which he 
was legally entitled, and he was therefore refused the- pay of second 
lieutenant, to which he was entitled. 

The diti'erence between the pay he did recei^'e and that to wliich 
lie was properly entitled amounts to $499.79. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

William A. Clark. (H. D. 517-.59-2.) Bowman Act.. Officer's 
claim for ilifference in pay. $329.30. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj'-second Congresses. , 

James S. De Land. (H. D. 270-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $202.88. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Ebenezer Gould. (Lucius E. Gould, Abbv E. Allison, and Marv 
1. Todd, heirs.) (H. D. 457-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $42.70. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

JuDsoN H. Gregg. (Elvira D. Gregg, widow.) (H. D. 571-60-1). 
-Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $116.28. 
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James N. Hill, sole heir or Joshua Hill, deceased. (S. D. 116- 
>63-l.) Tucker Act. First sent to court in 1890, under Bowman 
Act; later sent to court under Tucker Act, by Senate resolution, in 
1909. 

Court reports decedent loyal and that Army supplies taken from 
him were worth $3,040. One of the items is cotton, taken for hos- 
pital purposes. The court expressly reports that the claim as to 
item of cotton was transmitted as early as February, 1865, before 
•close of war, with recommendation by Maj. Gen. Reynolds that it be 
ipaid. It was made the subject of bill in Thirty-ninth Congress in 
-a.8(>6i. Court reports claim as an equitable one. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bills. 

>FREDERirK S. Hutchinson. (S. D. 529-61-2.) Tucker Act. 
^Officer's claim for difference in pay, $118.80. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congi-ess. 

George Lockley. (George J. Lot'kley, Joseph F. Lockley, and 
Sarah E. Todd, heirs.) (H. D. 249-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
"claim for difference in pay, $99.50. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Elisha R. Swain. (Maria N. Swain, widow.) (H. D. 325-59-1.) 
Bownum Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $361.86. 

Passed Semite in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty -second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 115 

Edwix a. Wells. (H. D. 25-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court JanuiM-y G, 1903. This is a companion case to tlie cases of 
Myron C. Bond and Guy M. Claflin, above mentioned. 

This claimant was first lieutenant of his company during the 
Spanish War. His captain was promoted to be major and claimant 
was duly commissioned captain, to fill the vacancy, and exercised 
command as captain from March 13, 1899, until mustered out, May 
IT, 1899. He was denied muster as captain because of question as 
to whether the regiment was entitled to two majors. The legality of 
the muster of Holloway as a second major was subsequently recog- 
nized by the War Department. 

It appears clear that this claimant was denied the muster to which 
he was entitled. Instead of receiving pay as captain thereafter he 
received the pay of a first lieutenant. The difference between the 
pay actually received by him and that to which he was entitled is 
reported as $116.67. 

Passed Senate and Plouse in Sixty-second Congress. 

MINNESOTA. 

Omar H. Case. (H. D. 583-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $191.63. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

FREnERicK Lambrecht. (H. D. 280-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of 
fleer's claim for difference in pay, $324.73. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Wakrex Onax. (H. D. 279-60-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay. $39.74. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

RANDt)Li'ii M. Probsfield. ( S. D. 37-62-1.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court January 24, 1901, by Senate resolution. Court reports that 
claimant was loyal and that, between September 15 and October 30, 
1863, there was taken from him for Army use in the State of Minne- 
sota supplies, consisting of hay, reasonably worth $200. 

The only unusual feature of this case to distinguish it from any 
other war claim is that it arose in the State of Minnesota. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

X. ]M. Ai,nRinoE. (T. A. Norris. administrator.) (H. D. 443- 
()0-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 24, 1896. Court finds 
claimant loyal and that supplies worth $980 were taken for Aruiy 
use. Claim filed before Southern Claims Commission, appearing on 
page 8 of index of such claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charles Baker. (I. P. Watts, administratrix.) (S. D. 196-58- 
2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897, by Senate i^solution. 



116 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

• 

Tin findings are not as explicit as they slioiild be and must be read 
in connection with the allegations of the petition in order to ascer- 
tain the exact facts which the court intends to report. 

It appears that Charles Baker died in 18G1 and that, subject to 
two legacies, his estate was beijueathed to Amanda Malinda Heath 
(afterwai'ds Powell) and to Elizabeth Jane Snyder (afterwards 
AVelch) : that said two persons were loyal. There was taken from 
the estate of said Charles Baker, the beneficial interest being then 
vested in said Amanda M. Heath (afterwards Powell) and said 
Elizal)eth Jane Snyder (afterwards Welch), subject to payment of 
said two legacies, supplies worth $8.:213 for Army use. 

It would appear that ai)i)ropi'iation might i)roperly be made to 
Amanda M. Powell and P^lizabeth Jane Snyder under these circum- 
stances, but as an administratrix of Charles Baker's estate has been 
api)ointed it is doubtless advisable to make ail appropriation to such 
administratrix. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Leopold Bickart. (H . D. r)0()-59-l.) Bownum Act. Sent to 
court March 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal and that supplies 
were taken from Bickart and his coowner. Christian Schwartz; fur- 
ther, that Bickart's share in the sup})lies taken for Army use was 
worth $1,500. Index of claims presented to Claims Connnission, 
page 207, shows the claim was presented by Schwartz to that connnis- 
sion and rejected. ' 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Il()Use in Sixtieth. Sixty-firsl. and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Kor.ERT Bradley. (Hiram lialdwin et al.. heirs.) (S. D. .'')0;5- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April -26, 11)04, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Heading the statement of the case with the explicit findings of 
fact, it appears that Robert Bradley died in 18(>3, leaving various 
heirs; that the claimants herein, Hiram Baldwin. Josei)h I)e France 
Baldwin, and Richard Robert Baldwin, were grandchildren and heirs 
of said Robert Bi-adley, owning an undivided Ki per cent of the 
estate; that supi)lies were taken for Army use from the Bradley 
heirs; and tliat the reasonable value of the interest of these three 
claimants there was $-2,000. 

These three clain)ants were all under 7 years of age at the time 
the property was taken. Hiram Baldwin is the oldest of petitioners 
and was born about 1857. Claim was not presented to Claims Com- 
mission, and it is plain that the eldest of these present claimants 
did not attain majority until about 1878, or about five years after the 
right to present claims to that connnission had been abrogated by act 
of Congress. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth Congress as a Tvonisiana claim, two of 
the claimants residing in that State. Passed House in Sixty-second 
Congi-ess. 

I). H. Chamhkhi.alx. (S. D. 480-01-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 8, 190S>. Court reports that claimant was loyal ; that 
sui)plies were taken from him and coowners, in which liis share 
amounted to $340. 

While not reported as one of the facts found by the court, it is 
alleged in the petition that the claim of T. J. Chamberlain, one of 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 117 

claimant's coowners, has been allowed, and examination of the claims 
appropriation act approved February 24^ 1905 (33 Stat., Tri,5), shows 
the claim of T. J. Chamberlain, of Jefferson County, Miss., in the 
snm of $340. Present claimant was only 1.5 years old when war 
ended. His brother has already received pay for his share in the 
supplies taken, and there would seem to be no reason for denying 
payment to the present claimant. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

PovAi.i, CiiAMiiKRS. (Eliza Chambers, administratrix.) (H. I). 
37-59-1.) Bowman Act. Court find.s decedent loyjil; that supplies 
worth $()70 were taken from him (\v ]:)roper authority. Claim ap- 
pears page 47 of index of claims filed with Claims Commission. 

While not reported as one of the facts found by the court, it would 
appear from allegations in the petition that the decedent Avas a col- 
ored man who was a slave until freed in 1863. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Sarati (t. Clark. (William T. Patliff, administrator.) ( S. D. 
17-5G-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897, by Senate reso- 
lutioiL Court finds that Sarah G. Clark, a widow, owned certain 
property during war: it further finds in effect that she was loyal, ex- 
pressly stating that she did nothing for or against either side except 
to express herself in favor of the I'nion and to fui'uish food to olH- 
cers and soldiers of the United States Anny. This finding must be 
taken to reasona})ly mean loyalty. Court further finds that Army 
'Supplies worth $1,355 were taken from her. She died in 1873. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

S. X. Clark. (W. T. Pvatliff, administrator.) (S. D. 2G2-57-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 11, 1900. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies worth $5,()50 were 
taken from hiuL 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congi'css. 

WiLi,Lv:\r L. Clearmax. (G. B. Harper and J. D. Clearman, execu- 
tors.) (S. D. 313-60-1.) Tucker Act. Claim first referred to court 
under Bowman Act July 13, 1892, but claim not haying been n'-e- 
sented to Claims Commission, court was without jurisdiction under 
that reference; later sent to court April 26, 1904, by Tucker Act, un- 
der Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that Army su})- 
plies worth $1,010 were taken from him: that claim was presented to 
Congress as early as 1878. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Margaret DAvmsox. (T. M. Davidson, administiator.) (11. I). 
229-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court September 6. 18ss. Couit 
finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $2,450 were taken for 

Armv use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-hrst. and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Carles A. Doak and John Pv. Doak. (H. D. 1225-60-2.) Tucker 
Act. Claim first referred to court under Bowman Act : later refeired 
March 31, 1906. under Tucker Act by House resolution. Court re- 
ports these two claimants loyal, they being infants of tender years 



118 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

• 
<li!riii<r war. Also reports that supplies were taken for Army usi> 
from these two claimants, their mother, and three older brothers : that 
the reasonable value of the interests of these two claimants in those 
supplies was $1,796.48. Court further reports that claimants' mother 
presented a claim to the Claims Commission, Avhich Avas rejected. 
Findings are explicit as to loyalty, ownership of property, takino-. 
and value. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eliza A. Fielder (Jefferson T. Cowling, administrator) and 1>en- 
.(AMix I.. Fielder. (H. D. 812-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 31, 1906. by House resolution. Court finds Eliza A. Fielder, 
now deceased, and Benjamin L. Fielder were loyal; that Army sup- 
plies w^orth $6r)r) were taken from said two persons, who were mother 
and son. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second CVmgresses. 

Hardixia p. Kelsev and Mildred E. Franklin. (Heirs of 
Hardin P. Franklin.) (S. D. 113-Cl-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 3. 1905. by Senate resolution. Court finds these two 
(•lain)ants loyal by reason oi tender years during war; that United 
States forces took for Army use supplies from these claimants and 
their coowners; that the interest of these two claimants in the 
pro])erty so taken was worth $860 ; that the reason the claim was not 
earlier presented was the minority of the claimants. The exact ages 
are not stated in the findings of fact, but it is alleged in the petition 
that Mildred E. Franklin was born in 1849 and Hardinia P. Kelsev 
in 1851. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

William Freeman. (Susan R. Jones, administratrix.) (H. D. 
:}23-59-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies 
worth $4,010 were taken from him ; that decedent placed the claim 
in the hands of a lawyer for collection in 18G3 or 1864, but that the 
lawyer died in the seventies Avithout having taken action. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Si xt A' -second Congresses. 

J. P. Fuller. (John Fuller, administrator.) (H. D. 884-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution, 
('ourt finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $790 were taken from 
him for Army use; that claim Avas presented as early as Fifty-fifth 
Congi'ess. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Matilda B. Haraey. (J. P. Harvey, administrator.) (S. D. 
3 20-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies Avj^rth $1,382 Avere taken 
from her. 

Passed House in Sixty-second (Congress. 

Ben.iamin Haaves. (J. A. Hill, administrator.) (S. D. 61()-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies Avorth $1,150 Avere 
taken; claim presented first to Fifty-sixth and succeeding Congresses. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 119 

California JNI. Hearn. in Her Own Right, and as Adjiinistratrix 
OF Susan L. Bailey and or Julia B. Hancock. (H. D. 532-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. 
Court finds claimant and her two decedents loyal; that Array sup- 
plies worth $1,695, owned in equal shares by claimant and her two 
decedents, were taken from them; that in 1871 decedent, Mrs. Bailey^ 
placed claim in hands of counsel for prosecution; claim first presented, 
in Fifty-seventh Congress. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hartwell B. Hilliard. (H. D. 239-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court March 17, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies Avere taken from him and his brother, wherein claimant's interest 
Avns worth $300. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

David R. Hubbard. (J. B. Hubbard, administrator.) (S. I>. 
362-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906. by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth 
$1,500 were taken from him: presented to Quartermaster General 
in 1892. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

William Hunt. (W. E. Hunt, executor.} (S. D. 619-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. This claim first presented to Southern Claims Commis- 
sion and rejected: was evidently sent to court first under Bowman 
Act and dismissed because loyalty not found; later sent to court 
under Tucker Act, and upon new evidence adduced decedent found 
loyal. Court further finds that Army supplies worth $16,010 were- 
taken from decedent. There seems to be nothing to distinguish this 
case from any other case of the sort, save that it has been tried twice 
by the court. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Sarah T. Jarratt. (John B. Jarratt. administrator.) (8. D. 
170-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1901, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies, worth, 
$1,389. were taken from her. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Elizabeth Johnson. (S. D. 203-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court February 5. 1901. by Senate resolution. Court finds r-laimant 
loyal; that Army supplies, worth $1,170, Avere taken from her. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Vernon H. Johnston. (Mary Julia Quicl\, Belle O. CoAvard, and 
John Anderson, heirs.) (S. D". 332-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to. 
court February 24, 1904. by Senate resolution. From findings it 
appears that Vernon H. Johnston died in 1862, his estate vesting in 
his Avidow, Mrs. Fannie J. Johnston, and three children, Maiy Julia 
Quick, Belle O. CoAvard. and Vernon Olivia Anderson, the names of 
the children being those after they were married. Court finds that 
this AvidoAv and these children remained loyal, the eldest of said 
children being under 10 years of age at close of war. 

Army supplies, Avorth $4,320. were taken from the widoAv and chil- 
dren, eliminating certain items for Avhich alloAvance was not made^ 



120 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

The petitioners, Mary Julia Quick and Belle O. Coward, claim in 
their own rights and also as heirs of their deceased sister and of theii 
mother: petitioner John Anderson claims only as representative of 
Mrs. Fannie J. Johnston through his deceased wife, who was Vernon 
Olivia Johnston. The court has explicitly stated the present respec- 
tive interests of the three claimants as follows: Mary Julia Quick, 
$1,980: Belle O. Coward. $1,980: John Anderson, $300. Claim was 
placed in hands of coun.sel as early as 1873 or 1874:. During period 
that Claims Commission was open to filing of claims the three chil- 
dren mentioned were minors. 

Pa-sed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Hexry Joxes. (Jane Jones, administratrix.) (S. D. 13-1-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies, worth $21."). were 
taken. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

KixcHEx W. King. (Henry W. King et al., heirs.) (S. D. 255- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1909, by Senate reso- 
lution. The facts in this case are peculiar. It appears that during 
the war Kinchen W. King Avas living, and court finds that he wa< 
loyal. From Kinchen \V. King Army supplies were taken, found to 
be worth $6,095. Shortly after the w^ar said Kinchen W. King died : 
claim was presented l)y the heirs to the Claims Connnission. which 
found said Kinchen W. King loyal. The commission assumed to 
pass upon loyalty, not only of the ])erson from whom the property 
was taken but of every beneficiary of his estate. 

In so doing it concluded that two of the King heirs had not re- 
mained loyal, their interest amounting to two-sevenths of the claim. 
Hence the commission rejected two-sevenths interest, amounting to 
$1,741.42. and allowed remainder, or $4,353.58. The present claim is 
made by one of the two heirs whose interest Avas rejected and by the 
estate of the other of said heirs for the interest eliminated by the 
Claiufs Commission. 

The (.nlv (juestion in this case is whether the Government will 
I'xtend its inquiries on loyalty further than the loyalty of the person 
who ()wned the property when it was taken. If it is necessary to 
inquire into the loyalty of every heir, beneficiary, or creditor, then 
this claim must stand rejected. If it is sufficient that the person from 
whom tlie property was taken was loyal, then this claim should be 
paid. 

It is very obvious that if this claim had been presented to the 
Court of Claims under the Tucker Act for the first time by an 
administrator of Kinchen AV. King the only inquiry on the matter 
of loyalty would be as to loyalty of Kinchen W. King himself. That 
is the uniform practice followed by the Court of Claims and recog- 
Jiized by Congress ever since the passage of the Bowman and Tucker 
Acts. This simply means that the loyalty of the person from whom 
supplies were taken is the only loyalty in issue. Applying that 
principle to tiiis case, it means that Kinchen W. King, owiierOf the 
proiH'i-ty. having l)een found loyal, the claim should be paid for the 
total value of the supplies taken. For this reason the claim was 
approved by the Committee on War Claims in the Sixty-second Con- 



i 



CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS. ETC. 121 

gress, and the claim passed the House in that Conoivss; and the 
present committee adopt the same theory and therefore inchide this 
claim in the bill. 

Nancy Lay. (Robert M. Lay, administrator.) (S. D. 34-C.O-l.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 4, 1901, by Senate resclution. 
Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth $2,804 were taken 
from her for Army use: claim was apparently filed with Southern 
Claims Commission, but too late for consideration. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second CongTcsses. 

Emma S. Leavis. (Emma Jones and Leon Lewis, lieirs.) ( H. D. 
(')40-59-l.) BovN-man Act. Sent to court January 12. 1904. Comt 
finds Emma S. Lewis was loyal; that supplies worth $1.8ir> were 
taken from her for Army use. P'rom the title of the case adopted 
by the court, it appears that Emma Jones and Leon Lewis are the 
heirs of Emma S. Lewis. Claim appears on page 143 of Southern 
Claims Commission index, showing presentation to that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martha Lixdley. (Amnion F. Lindlev, administrator.) (H. D. 
737-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 20. 1888. Court find^ 
decedent loyal and that supplies worth $320 were taken from her 
for Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Uriah Lunenburger. (William Lunenburger, administrator.) 
(S. D. 64-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that supplies worth 
$250 were taken for Army use. 

Pas.sed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Tranqiilla McRavex. (Harvey R. McRaven. heir.) ( S. D. 
562-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 7, 1901. by Senate 
resolution. Court's findings in this case are not clearly drawn, and 
require careful study in connection with allegations of the petition. 
This study shows that supplies were taken from the heirs of Kobert 
McRaven, and in its second finding the court states that in Army 
supplies taken by proper authority the " value of claimant's share "' 
was $1,160. Coiirt further reports as a reason for failure to present 
claim prior to Fiftv-sixth Congress the minority of the claimant. 
Presumably the court intended its findings to mean something mate- 
rial to consideration of the claim, and while they are blindly drawn 
the meaning thus given them is the only one which would make them 
material. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Harriet Miles. (S. D. 102-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to c-ourt 
February 26, 1901, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal : 
that supplies were taken for Army use worth $1,795. elinnnating al! 
items of use and occupation, damage or destruction. Court fur- 
ther reports that the claim was presented to a military commission 
as early as 1863, which was necessarily within a few months of the 



122 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TrCKEK ACTS^ ETC. 

time Avhen the property -was taken. This fact would indicate dili- 
gence of a very unusual degree. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Willis J. Morak. (Mrs. L. H. Rowland, administratrix.) (S. D. 
331-60-1.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court under Bowman 
Act and case dismissed; later sent to court ^larch 31, 190G, under 
Tucker Act, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and 
that Army supplies worth $845 were taken from him. Apparently 
claim was not filed with Claims Commission, which accounts for 
dismissal of Bowman Act reference. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

William O. Moseley. (John M. Bass, administrator.) (H. D. 
363-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 15, 1899, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Arni}^ supplies worth 
$4,285 were taken from him, no allowance being made for cotton. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Mary Ann Nagle. (E. L, Brien. administrator.) (S. D. 
160-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 23, 1900, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces, by 
proper authority'', occupied decedent's dwelling for two years, begin- 
ning July, 1863 ; that rental value was $960. Claim apparently not 
preseiitecl to Claims Commission, which had no jurisdiction of claims 
for rent. No tribunal ever open to this claim. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Thomas J. Price. (James M. Price, sole heir and legatee.) (S. 
D. 491-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal : that Army supplies worth 
$665 were taken from him. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixt3^-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Julia Quine. (A. A. Raley. administrator.) (H. D. 564-61-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 7. 1908. Court finds decedent 
loyal and that supplies worth $885 were taken from decedent for 
Army use. Claim appears on page 193. index of Southern Claims 
Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Robert Raiford. (Margaret Raiford Loftin, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 218-.57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies 
Avortli 5^^2.578 were taken from him: that claim Avas presented to the 
Quartermaster (Jeneral and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Pa>.sed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-fii-^t and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Read. (W. A. Montgomery, administrator.) (H. D. 120- 
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 6. 1888. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal and that Army supplies Avorth $2,160 were taken from 
him. Fact that (-(airt tried case under Bowman Act shows it must 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 123 

have be-en presented to Claims Commission: claim appears on page 
] 95 of Southern Claims Commission index. 

Maria A. Reixhardt. (W. T. Smith, administrator.) (S. D. 177- 
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26. 1904, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $3,395 
Avere taken from her by proper authority; that decedent died in 1870, 
prior to estaljlishment of Southern Claims Commission ; that her heirs 
presented the claim to Congress in 1878; that claim was first referred 
to court under Bowman Act in 1890 and dismissed; case was neces- 
sarily dismissed under that reference for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Melchisedec Robinson. (J. D. Robinson, administrator.) (H. D. 
303-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal and that Army supplies Avorth 
$1,531 were taken from him. Index of claims presented to Hou^e 
shows this claim was presented by petition in first session of Forty- 
eighth Congress; was not acted upon until 1901; claim pending be- 
fore Congress from 1877 till 1901. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Catherine J. Rutherford. (G. D. Able, administrator.) (H. I>. 
379-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal ; that Army supplies worth $620 were taken from lier. 
Being Bowman Act case claim must have been presented to Claims 
Commission; claim found on page 205 of index of that commission. 

Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Minor Saunders. (H. D. 227-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, he 
having been a slave until freed by emancipation proclamation; court 
further finds that after being emancipated claimant worked for him- 
self and became owner of some property, of kinds mentioned in peti- 
tion, i. e., 2 mules, 1 ox team and wagon, and some corn; that sup- 
plies of these kinds worth $160 were taken from him under proper 
authority. Claim not presented to Claims Commission, but the fact 
that this man was a former slave would probably show reason for 
failure to follow up his claim before that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Schavartz. (Susannah Schwartz, executrix.) ( H. D. 
499-59-1.) Bowman Act. Court finds claimant loyal.- This is the 
same partnership claim previously commented upon under the title 
of Leopold Bickart. Court finds supplies taken for Army use from 
two cooAvners, and that the interest of ScliAvartz therein Avas Avorth 
$1,500. ShoAvn in refei-ring to the Bickart claim this claim was i)re- 
sented to Claims Commission. 

William B. Sims. (W. J. Sims, executor.) (H. D. 62-63-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court December 8, 1884. and again on April 
30, 1910. Claim prosecuted before the Southern Claims Commission, 
and appears on page 214 of the printed index of such claims. Claim- 



124 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

ant found loyal, and it is found that supplies worth $2,32.") ^vere 
taken for Army use. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in prior bills. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj'^-second Congresses. 

Faxnie Solari. (Heir of p:nianuel :\r. Solari.) (H. D. 194-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. First sent to court in 1S91 under Bowman Act: later 
sent under Tucker Act on February 1-2. 1899. by House resolution. 
Court finds that decedent. Emanuel M. Solari, was loyal; that sup- 
plies were taken from him by proper authority; that the ])resent 
claimant's interest in the claini as heir of her father is an undivided 
one-eighth and amounts to $219. Claim not presented to claims 
commission; decedent died in 18G3, when present claimant was 10 
years of age. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charles O. Spexcer. ( S. D. 220-r)C.-l . ) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court July. 1897, by Senate resolution. Court finds that claimant 
was born in 18o0 and took no ])art in rebellion, this amounting to a 
finding of loyalt3\ (^»urt further reports that Army sup])lies Avere 
taken from claimant and his coowners. wherein claimant's interest 
was reasonably worth $2,031. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Wiley AV. Tiptcjx. (H. D. s01-,-)9-1.) Bowman Act. Referre.! 
to court August 6. 1898. Court finds .claimant loyal and that sup- 
plies Avorth $000 Avere taken for Army use. Claim appears on page 
230 of Southern Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

JoHX Waters. (Smith Summers, administrator.) ( S. D. 32-00-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 14, 1901, by Senate resoluticm. 
Court finds decedent loyal. Army supi)lies AA'orth $1,700 taken for 
Army use. 

Elizabeth H. Welford. (Mrs. J. H. T. Jackson, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 192-00-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 20, 1904, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal by reason of tender years 
during AA'ar; that Army supplies AA-ere taken from decedent Avorth 
$3,050; that claim AA'as presented to Southern Claims Commission. 
but Avas not i)roA'en, it being alleged that the expense thereof Avas 
greater than she AA'as able to beai". 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joel H. Willis. (Bettie B. Willis, administratrix.) ( H. D. 
207-00-1.) lioAvman Act. Sent to court [March 4, 1887. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that sup])lies Avorth $0,040 were taken from him for 
Army use. Claim presented to Southei-n Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Wood. (H. D. 538-00-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
Febnuiry 12, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal and that Am y sup- 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 125 

l)lies worth $880 were taken from him. Claim tried under Bowman 
Act, which presupposes presentation to Southern Claims Commission. 
Found on page 258 of index of that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixt^^-second Congresses. 

Rkhakd O. Woodsox. (John L. Woodson, administrator.) (H. 
D. r>T7-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to. court April 30, 1886. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $2,250 were taken from him 
for Army use. Claim filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed Plouse in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church of Corinth, Miss. (S. D. 556-61-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States forces by proper authority took 
the material froni claimant's church building for military purposes; 
that building was worth $800; claim first presented to Fifty-second 
and succeeding Congresses. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Christian Church or Corinth, Miss. (S. D. 72-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loA'al; that its brick church building was torn down by 
United States forces and materials used in camps; that building was 
AYorth $1,250. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church of Corinth, Miss. (Successor to Cumber- 
land Presbyterian Church.) (S. D. 557-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to coiu't May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; that United States forces occupied the church building for 
military purposes and damaged same; that rental value during period 
of occupation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
$833. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal, Church South, of Corinth, Miss. (S. D. 
622-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces used 
premises as a guardhouse and erected a stockade about the building; 
that on evacuation of Corinth commanding officer Avas ordered to 
remove all lumber in buildings erected by troops and to destroy such 
lumber as could not be removed ; that the stockade was burned and 
the church building also burned; that rental value during period of 
occupation and value of building at time of destruction are $1,790. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Red Bone, Miss. (S. D. 

336-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21. 1910. by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used church building for 
hospital and other military purposes; rental value, with damages 
incident to this use, was $650. Court concludes claim is equitable. 
Claim certified too late for consideration in connection with previous 
bills. 



126 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS. ETC. 

MISSOURI. 

Willis M. Allmax. (Merit F. Thomas, administrator.) CS. 1). 
254-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1900, by Senate res- 
olution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies were taken for 
Army use from decedent and his coo^Yner. worth $420; that Allman's 
interest therein was worth $210. Findings accompanied by conclu- 
sion that claim is equitable, in that United States received benefit of 
the property. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

JoHx M. Armstroxg. (Francis T. Buckner, administrator.) (S. 
D. 22-1-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, li)08, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States troops 
occupied his storeroom and stable as quarters and stable; that the 
damages to buildings incident to such occui3ation amount to $460. 
No allowance made for rent, that item having been paid through 
Quartermaster General. Claim presented to that officer in 1874 and 
rejected as to damages for want of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

JoHx Bagg. (Caroline E. Bagg, widow.) (H. D. 254-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $922.90. 

The findings were apparently made during the lifetime of the de- 
cedent. John Bagg, but it has been represented to the committee that 
he has since departed this life, and it has been requested that appro- 
priation be made to his widow, who is named in the bill. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixt^'-second Congresses. 

William Baker. (H. D. 87-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
April 23, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth $140 
were taken for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster Gen- 
eral and to Commissary General and rejected. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Louis Bexecke. (H. D. 804-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 6, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that 
he served in Union Army greater part of Avar; was captain latter 
part of war; his company was originally formed for local defense, 
but became Company I, Forty-ninth Missouri Volunteers. Capt. 
Benecke furnished his company repeating rifles and cartridge boxes 
at his own exj^ense, same to remain his property till paid for; that 
43 rifles and cartridge boxes were lost without fault on Benecke's 
part, some through casualties of service and some being retained by 
hospital authorities when members of company died in hospital or 
were discharged therefrom ; that cost to claimant of the arms so lost 
was $1,763. Claim presented to Treasury Department as early as 
October, 1865, but rejected for want of jurisdiction; later presented 
to Fifty-fourth Congress. 

If any claim has been reported by the court which the Government 
should gladly pay, this would seem to be such a claim. It is merely 
proj)osed to reimburse this Federal captain for what he spent for 
G-overnment use from his own funds. 

Passed House in Sixtv-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 127 

E. W. Bishop. (Jane S. Bishop, executrix.) (H. D. 735-00-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 1. 1887. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that by proper authority United States forces occupied de- 
cedent's hinds and buildings described in petition, in Missouri, and 
that reasonable rental vahie was $600. Claim presented to Quarter- 
master General and rejected for supposed lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph C. Black. (H. D. 173-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court April 23, 1890. Court finds chiimant hjyal : that supplies worth 
$235 were taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act. so chum 
must have been presented to Quartermaster General in proper time. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jesse M. Blue (Sarah Katherine Blue, executrix) and Davu) 
Blue (William Traughber. administrator). (H. D. 11-61-1.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court Sei)tember 24. 1888. Court finds Jesse M. 
Blue loyal; that he was surviving partner of Jesse M. and David 
Blue; that as such surviving partner he held certain property; that 
some of the partnership property, being x\rmy supplies, were taken, 
\vorth $710. While payment might be made to estate of surviving 
partner, yet as estates of both partners are represented, apjn-opria- 
tion may more properly be made in equal shares to both estates. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Sarah D. Bookout. (K. D. and F. M. Bookout. heirs.) ( H. D. 
C41-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12. 1910. Court 
finds claimant loyal; Army supplies taken, worth $530. Claim 
presented to Quartermaster General and rejected by him. 

Findings certified too late for consideration in connection with 
previous bill. 

Sterling M. Boyse. (William D. Boyse, heir.) (H. D. 514-C)0-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 2, 1891. Court finds decedent 
loyal ; that supplies worth $365 were taken for Army use. First 
presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alexander Bradshaw. (Jane F. Bradshaw et al.. heirs.) (H. D. 
519-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court January K'k 1903, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $420 
were taken for Army use ; that his heirs are : Mrs. Jane F. Brad- 
shaw, widow, and Lucius M. Bradshaw. James E. Bradshaw, and 
Susan L. McLaughlin, children. Claim placed in hands of counsel 
about 1874 or 1875, in time for presentation to Quartermaster Gen- 
eral. Only one heir appears in petition, so let appropriation run to 
heirs generally for legal distribution. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, iind 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William C. Brum.mett. (H. D. 628-60-1.) Bowman Act. 
Officer's claim for difference in pay, $390.93. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Isaac Brooks. (John W. Brooks, heir.) (H. D, 867-59-1..) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court Mav 14, 1902. Court finds decedent loyal ; 



128 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 

• 

that .siipplieij worth $320 were taken from him for Army use. Tried 
under Bowman Act. which presuppcs^etl presentation of claim to 
Quartermaster (leneral. 

]*assod Iiou.se in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses, 

(). H. C'o(;swKLL. (Mrs. Nannie CVigsAvell et al.. heirs.) (H. D. 
4si>_(i()_l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court" February -JO. 1903, by House 
re>ohiti< n. Court finds decedent was loyal: that supplies were ap- 
propriated to use of United States troops worth $1.()00; also that 
Mrs. Nannie Ccgswell, widow, and ()-car W. Cogswell. .John R. 
Cogswfll. :nul Emma Cogswell, chihhen. are the heirs of said de- 
cedent. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Ansef-.m L. Davidson. (C. C. Bmidy. administrator.) (H. 1). 
M):^-()l-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court P'ebruary 4. 1908. Court 
finds decadent loyal; that supplies worth $(500 were taken from him 
for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John P. Dukk. (H. D. 63T-."»0-2. ) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January l-t, 1902. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States 
troops took ]30ssession of certain supplies and shipped them to 
Kansas City: the supplies were worth $2,390. and consisted of 
hoots, shoes, and leather. 

Pa.ssed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Si xty-second Congresses. 

Hi^on Cr. Glenn. (Estate.) ( H. D. 618-61-2.) Bowman Act. 
Sent to court Ju.ly 10, 1888, Court finds decedent loyal: also that 
supplies worth $1,280 were taken from him for Army use. Claim 
presented to Quartermaster General. Claim is entitled "Estate of 
Hugh G. Glenn." but findings and >tatement fail to show whether 
estate is represented by an administrator. Hence let appropriation 
run to the estate for legal distribution. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

County oe (ireene. Mo. (S. I). 23.'i-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court May 22. 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal as a county ; that TTnited States military forces, under proper 
authority, occupied the (;ounty courthouse and jail for hospital and 
guardhouse and damaged same: that rental value, with damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $6,010. A conclusion accom- 
panies the findings that claim is an equitable one in that the (lov- 
ernment received benefit of use of the ])roperty. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Joseph C. Giussom. (H. D. :>90-.^9-2. ) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for dittVrence in pay. $1,208.19. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John R. Hamaciiek. (H. D. 2^ri-('.0-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for ditference in pay, $42.3s. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Hou^e in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Con<>i'esses. 



CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAlsr AND TUCKER ACTS; ETC. 129 

John Hammontree. (Elijah B. Hammontree. administrator.) 
(H. D. 689-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. 
Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies Avorth $42.5 were^taken from 
him for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nathan E. Harrelson. (John B. Harrelson, administrator.) 
(H. D. 472-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 19, 1909. 
Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $.5,268 were taken 
from him for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Manning Harris. (Mary C. and Agnes A. Estes, heirs.) (H. D. 
65-63-1.) Judicial Code of March 3, 1911. Referred to court by 
House resolution June 22, 1912. Court finds that the decedent, 
Manning Harris, was loyal and that supplies worth $3,000 were 
taken for Army use. The conclusion of the court is that the claim 
is an equitable one. 

Claim certified too late to be included in former bills. 

Paschal Henshaw. (H. D. 46-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
was a private in Missouri Militia; enrolled August 10, 1864; in Oc- 
tober, 1864, he was serving in defense of Glasgow, Mo. The colonel 
in command found it necessary to surrender the town and the de- 
fending forces to the Confederates. Henshaw brought into the serv- 
ice his own horse, worth $120 ; horse equipment, worth $27 ; revolver, 
worth $25; and overcoat, worth $15; all amounting to $187, and all 
this property was taken from him as an incident to said surrender. 
Claims were made by Henshaw and 10 others of said company simi- 
larly situated ; three claims were allowed by Treasury Department 
and remainder, including Henshaw's, were rejected under a decision 
of the comptroller that there was no law providing for payment. 

While the comptroller's decision was doubtless correct, it would 
seem that the claim possesses strong equity, such as may be very 
properly recognized by Congress by payment of the small claim. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel E. Howell and James H. Howell. (In their own right 
and as heirs of Mary Ann Thomas, deceased, and of William T. 
Howell, deceased.) (H. D. 63-63-1.) Tucker Act. Referred to 
court by House resolution February 3, 1911. This case really com- 
bines two claims. The first is for property taken from Mary Ann 
Thomas, grandmother of the present claimants; the court finds her 
loyal. The second claim is for property taken from the present 
claimants, Samuel E. and James H. Howell, and their deceased 
brother, William T. Howell; all three have been found loyal by the 
court. The court further finds that supplies worth $1,350 were taken 
from Samuel E. Howell, James H. Howell, and their two decedents, 
Mary Ann Thomas and William T. Howell, for Army use. The 
present claimants are sole surviving heirs of their decedents. The 
conclusion of the court is that this claim is an equitable one. 

The claim was certified too late for inclusion in former bills. 

19855— H. Rept. 97, 63-2 9 



130 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

George W. HocKEXS^riTH. (David Hockensmith. administrator.) 
(S. D. 141-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth 
$540 taken. Claim for part of the property herein was filed with 
Quartermaster General in 1867 and rejected ; claim previously re- 
ferred to court in 1896, under Bowman Act, and later referred under 
Tucker Act. as uientioned. Court reports that claim is equitable in 
that (lovernment received the benefit of the supplies. 

Findings certified too late for previous consideration. 

Jacob Hufty. (AV. AV. Huffman, administrator.) (S. D. 201- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; troops took lumber from him for 
use in building winter quarters wortli $1,020. Conclusion of court is 
that claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for consideration in connection with previous 
bills. 

Jackson County. Mo. (H. D. 17.5-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 16. 1887. Court finds that United States forces, by 
proper authority, occupied courthouse and jail for quarters and hos- 
pital: that rental value was $410. County presumed loyal, as Mis- 
souri was itself loyal as a State. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

Thomas Ja.mks. < Mary E. James, widow.) (H. D. 568-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay. $149.90. 

In this case the court further reports that if it be decided that 
claimant did not forfeit part of his veteran bounty when promoted to 
a lieutenancy tlie total claim would amount to $289.90. Xo reason is 
reported for allowing the additional sum mentioned, so the appro- 
priation recommended is of the lesser sum of $149.90. which is the 
amoimt carried by the previously reported bills. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

AmiAM JoxES. (H. D. 845-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
February 26. 1890. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth 
$245 were taken from him for Army use. Having been tried under 
Bowman Act. claim must have been filed with Quartermaster General 
and Commissary General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin Kirk. (H. N. Vaughn, executor.) (H. D. 819-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 23, 1890, Court finds decedent 
loyal; that suj^plies Avorth $336 were taken for Anny use. Claim 
filed Avith Quartermaster General and Commissary General. 

Pa&sed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John W. Livesay. (Amanda M. Livesav, administratrix.) (H. 
p. 51.3-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court Januarj^ 15. 1901. Court 
finds claimant loyal, and that supplies worth $816 were taken for 
Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 131 

Benjamin F. Lutman. (H. D. 458-59-2.) Bowman Act. Offi- 
cer's claim for difference in pay, $388.96. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Philip Michael. (Philip Michael, jr., heir.) (H. D. 744-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 23, 1890. Court finds decedent 
loyal, and that supplies worth $425 were taken for Army use. 
Claims presented to Quartermaster General and to Commissary 
General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Karoline Mulhaupt. (S. D. 74-59-1.) Tucker Act. First sent 
to court under Bowman Act, February 27, 1887 ; loyalty found under 
that reference, but that case went no further as court had no juris- 
diction under Bowman Act ; later sent to court under Tucker Act, 
January 5, 1905, by Senate resolution. Under last reference court 
finds claimant loyal; also that United States forces occupied, by 
projDer authority, a house and lot in Memphis, Tenn., belonging to 
claimant from June, 1862, to April, 1866, or 45 months; that reason- 
able rental value, with damages incident to such use, was $1,395. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mrs. E. S. Munn. (Charles W. Munn, administrator.) (H. D. 
604—61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 5, 1909, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; also that supplies worth 
$1,615 were taken from her in Barry County, Mo. Claim placed in 
hands of an attorney in early eighties. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andrew J. Nept. (Jay H. Neff, administrator.) (H. D. 
591-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$240.28. The sum mentioned is made up of two separate items 
reported by the court, i. e., $227.90 and $12.38. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Levi S. North. (H. D. 172-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
August 6, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth 
$490 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bowman 
Act, must have been filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William B. Payne. (H. D. 912-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court by House resolution, date not stated. Court finds claimant 
loyal; that supplies worth $4,754 were taken for Army use. Claim 
not filed with Quartermaster General; placed in hands of counsel 
in 1867. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Phelps County, Mo. (S. D. 353-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds United States 
forces occupied county courthouse for hospital and other purposes; 
that rental value and" damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear 
was $890. 



i 



132 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

There is no finding on loyalty: but as Missouri never seceded the 
legal presumption, in absence of any thing to contrary, is that a sub- 
division of a loyal State was itself loyal. No objection is found to 
this claim. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Daniel K. Pondek. (S. D. ,)84-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 26. 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; that supplies worth $530 Avere taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

TiLLARD Raoan AND SoPHiA L. Ragan. (Mary L. Cropper et al., 
heirs.) (H. D. 1272-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 
28, 1906. Court finds Tillard Ragan and Sophia L. Ragan loyal; 
that supplies worth $2,970 were taken from them for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William B. Reich. (S. D. 272-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; that a mule was taken from him for Army use worth $115. 
Court states conclusion that claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

"William A. Ryan. (George W. January, administrator.) (H. D. 
335-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court ' February 4, 1908. Court 
finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth $1,260 were taken for Army 
use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

County Court, Ste. Genevieve County, Mo. (S. D. 441-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds that United States forces, by proper authority, occupied 
county courthouse for military purposes: that rental value, with 
damages incidental to the occupancy, was $1,200. There is no find- 
ing on loyalty, but a county of a loyal State was presumptively loyal. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Shadrack Sechrest. (S. D. 551-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court June 21, 1910, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; Army supplies, worth $500, taken. Court reports claim is 
equitable. Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

Francis M. Sheppard. (H. D. 1463-60-2.) Bowman Act. _ This 
is an unusual claim and has been therefore given special considera- 
tion. The facts found by the court are, in brief, as follows : 

Sheppard was a private in Company I, One hundred and sixteenth 
Illinois Volunteers. The provost marshal seized $830 belonging 
to him, on ground that Sheppard was a gambler (and supposedly on 
ground that the money had been won by gambling) ; in April, 1865, 
a court of inquiry was convened and Sheppard was required to prove 
that the money had not been won gambling. 

This court of inquii-y recommended that $376 be restored to him 
and that the remaining $454 be confiscated as being proceeds of a 
gambling game known as " chuck luck." The $376 was never restored 
to Sheppard; the $454 was used by the commanding officer as part 
of what was called a " provost " fund, wliich was not regarded asr 
public money. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 133 

The whole sum of $830 comprised $2U0 in coupons and $000 in 
interest-bearing- bonds. 

As to the right of claimant to restoration of the smaller sum of 
$376 there is no room for question. The only real question in this 
claim is whether this man should be paid the other sum of ^54. 

It is possible that by some proper proceeding, Sheppard, if found 
gudty of gambling in defiance of Army regulations, might have been 
fined by a duly convened court-martial the sum found to have been 
won by him. That was not, done, however. He was never court- 
martialed at all, so far as shown by the findings. When called before 
this mere court of inquiry the burden was placed upon him to prove 
that the money was not won in gambling. 

It seems clear that no mere court of inquiry had the power to con- 
fiscate this man's money; nor had his comuianding officer any such 
authority, in the oi)inion of the committee. It would theref(tre ap- 
pear that this man's property was taken from him without due process 
of law, either civil or military. 

This conclusion leads to the further question as to whether the 
Government should pay claimant the money disbursed by the com- 
manding officer as part of the " provost fund." The money was not 
placed in the United States Treasury, apparently. It would seem to 
be a fair inference, however, that the money so spent was expended 
for benefit of the troops, che Government therefore securing a benefit 
from the expenditure, even though by indirection. 

For these reasons the committee recommends payment of the entire 
sum illegally taken from him — i. e., $830 — thus resolving any possible 
doubt in favor of this former Union soldier. 

Claim for restoration of the $376 was made in 1891 to the Treasury 
Department and denied for lack of jurisdiction. 

This claim passed the House in Sixty-first Congress as to $376. and 
passed House in Sixty-second Congress as to entire sum involved. 

William F. Smithey. (H. D. 572-62-2.) Tucker xVct. Sent to 
court February 5, 1909, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; troops took supplies for Army use, in which claimant owned 
an undivided half interest ; also used for military purposes a livery 
stable wherein claimant had an undivided half interest. Claimant's 
interest in the supplies taken and in rental value of the stable, includ- 
ing damages incident to use, amounts to $600. Court reports claim 
equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

Lowell G. Spauldixg. (William W. Trigg, administrator.) 
(S. D. 260-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth 
$12,500 were taken from him for Army use. Court further finds 
claim not presented to Quartermaster General; that decedent was 
preparing to come to Washington to present his claim in 1864 or 1865, 
but fell sick and died ; that by the taking of the property in question 
the Avidow was so impoverished that she could not have the claim pre- 
sented. Court states its conclusion that the claim is equitable in that 
the Government received the benefit of the supplies taken. 

Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress. 



134 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

State Hospital Xo. 1, Fultox, Mo. (John P. Bell, treasurer.) 
(S. D. 121-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1903, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds that the property in question be- 
longed to the State of ^lissouri. Avhich remained loyal; that United 
States forces occupied State Hospital No. 1, at Fulton, ]Mo., for mili- 
tary purposes; that compensation as to rental value during the occu- 
pancy has already been given; that by reason of said occupancy re- 
pairs were made necessary which actually cost $14,000 merely to re- 
store the premises to their condition prior to said occupancy. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congi'esses. 

Merit F. Thomas. (H. D. 736-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 9, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
that Army supj^lies worth $420 were taken from him and his coowner, 
W. M. Allman; that claimant's share therein was worth one-half, or 
$210. This is companion claim to that of Allman, above mentioned. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Turley. (Mildred Turley, administratrix.) (H. D. 918- 
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 1, 1904. Court finds 
claimant's decedent loyal; that supplies worth $3,390 were taken 
for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so must have been 
filed Avitli Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mary E. Willett. (S. D. 381-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 21. 1910, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
Army supplies worth $871 taken. Court reports claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

John Wilson. (Eli D. Wilson and Narcissus Wilson, executors.) 
(H. D. 230-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 5, 1890. 
Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $425 were taken for 
Army use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

George W. Yancey. (William Yancey, administrator.) (S. D. 
264-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1911, by Senate 
resolution. Case previously referred in 1906, under Bowman Act, but 
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Court finds decedent loyal; that 
rails and corn worth $2,100 were taken for Army use by proper au- 
thority. Court reports its conclusion that claim is e<|uitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

Solomon Yoino. (Harriet L. Young, administratrix.) (H. D. 
001-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 7, 1890. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $3,800 were taken for Army use. 
Having been tried under Bowman Act. claim must have been filed 
with (>)uartermaster General and Commissary General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Church, Harrison ville, Mo. (S. D. 160-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1906, by Senate resolution. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 135 

Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church 
premises about two years and damaged same; that rent has been 
already paid, but that the claim filed with Quartermaster General for 
damages was rejected for lack of jurisdiction; that damages incident 
to such occupancy, in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $650. 
Claim presented to Quartermaster General and i-ejected as to item 
of damages, as above mentioned. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Harrison villi:. Mo. (S. D. 
21-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1{)04. by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occu- 
pied its building three years; that rental value wdth damages inci- 
dent to the use was $779.75. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Ciiitrch, Jefferson CiTr, Mo. (S. D. 140-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that in September. 18C1, United States 
forces took possessifm of its premises and occupied them till spring 
of 1865; that rental value, plus expense of making repairs necessary 
to restore building to former c(mdition, was $1,380. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Macon, Mo. (S. 1). 557-60-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that United Stales forces occupied church 
building for hospital and other ])urposes; that rental value, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $700. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbytorian Chfrch, Macon, Mo. (S. D. 480-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church building 
as barracks and commissary; that rental value, with damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $(>00. Claim i)resented to 
Quartermaster General and rejected. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Christian Church, Marshall, Mo. (S. D. 41-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court Jiuie 13, 1906), by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that church building was used by United States 
forces from March, 1862, to August, 1865; that rental value, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,240. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

First Christian Church, Mexico, Mo. (S. D. 291-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church building; 



136 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

« 

that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-secfMid Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Mexico, Mo. (S. D. 
267-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occu- 
pied church building about two years; that rental value, Avith dam- 
ages in excess of ordinary w^ear and tear, was $710. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

U>s'ivERSiTy or Missouri. (S. D. 123-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent tf) 
court in April. 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant an 
institution of learning, whose officers were loyal men, and that its 
property was not used to aid the rebellion. Claimant's property was 
worth $169,000; United States forces occupied same from fall of 
1861 till close of war. save for short intervals; damages resulting from 
such occupation amount to $5,075. Claim was made to War Depart- 
ment for rent and incidental damages; it was rejected as to item 
of damages for lack of jurisdiction; claim for rent only was adjusted 
and paid. Present claim for damages obviously just. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixt,y-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Church, Pleasant Hill, Mo. (S. D. 39-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied its 
building about 18 months and totally destroyed same; that value of 
building was $.>00. including use and occupation. The court says 
this was done '* b}- proper authority for the use of the Army." This 
claim ma}^ be ])roperly considered as falling within the general class, 
evidently, where buildings were used and thereby damaged or de- 
stroyed otherwise than as an act of warfare. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

First Christian Church, Springfield, Mo. (S. D. 343-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, bj'^ Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied its 
building for 16 months and claimant was paid $160 as rent; that 
building was damaged to extent of $275 by said occupancy. Claim 
for rent and damages filed with AVar Department in 1874; allowed as 
to rent and rejected as to damages. No reason appears why this 
church should not be compensated for the damage done its building. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Sprinoitkld, Mo. (S. D. 
20-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolutmn. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces 
occupied church building from August, 1861, to May, 1864; that 
rental value with sum necessary to restore building to former condi- 
tion was $3,150. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 137 

Christian Church, Sturgeon, Mo. (S. D. 3T4-59-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church building as 
hospital and stable greater part of the time from summer of 1861 to 
October, 1864; that rent was paid througli Quartermaster Depart- 
ment, but nothing paid on account of damages : that damages in ex- 
cess of ordinary wear and tear were $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Church, Warsaw, Mo. (S. D. 8-61-1.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claim- 
ant loyal; that United States forces occupied church building for 
hospital and other purposes; that rental value with damages in ex- 
cess of ordinary wear and tear was $660. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

3I0NTANA. 

James E. Callaway. (Mary E. L. Callaway, widow.) (H. D. 
582-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for diiference in pay, 
$53.23. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

NEBRASKA, 

Columbus P. French. (Margaret C. French, widow.) (H. D. 
584-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$176.40. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Michael Trucks. (H. D. 595-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $377.67. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

NEVADA. 

John Allman. (S. D. 68-58-3.) Tucker Act. 

John M. Forsyth. (S. D. 71-58-3.) Tucker Act. 

Frank J. Mc Worthy. (S. D. 72-58-3.) Tucker Act. 

Thomas Rodgers. (S. D. 69-58-3.) Tucker Act. 

James M. Thompson. (Vinnie J. Thompson, executrix.) (S. D. 
74-58-3.) Tucker Act. 

These claims may be considered together, as they all arose out of 
the same general conditions. They were sent to the court by Senate 
resolutions on February 8, 1900, save the Forsyth claim, sent April 
11, 1899. 

These claims arose from necessity of white people in and about 
Carson City and Virginia City and smaller settlements in Nevada 
protecting themselves against hostile Indians in winter of 1859-60. 
Regular troops were sent from California, but did not arrive till a 
volunteer company had fought the Indians and had been defeated, 



138 CLAIMS UXDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

with loss of su])plies and property. The volunteer troops then oper 
ated with the Regulars till the Indians sued for peace. 

These claims are for value of supplies, arms, horses, mules, etc., 
furnished for this campaign. It appears that some of the supplies 
were furnished to the regular troops. (See findings in Forsyth case.) 
Forsytli was himself one of the volunteers. AVliile it might be con- 
tended that isolated settlers in the West knew they must protect 
themselves from Indians, that theory could hardly hold good as to 
residents of Carson City or Virginia City and vicinity. It would 
seem that there nnist have rested some obligation ujjon the Govern- 
ment to i:)rotect those settlements. The fact that Regular troops were 
later sent to the scene Avould seem to prove this responsibility of the 
Government. 

As to supplies furnished the regular troops there would seem to 
be the basis of a legal claim against the Government. It is impos- 
sible to tell, however, just what supplies were furnished to the 
Regulars and Avhat to the Volunteers. 

Under these peculiar circumstances it would seem more nearly 
accomplishing justice that the loss arising from these conditions 
should be borne by all the people than be left on the shoulders of 
these five public-spirited men. This view has evidently been pre- 
viously adopted by both Houses of Congress in different Congresses. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Claims are for following sums : 

Alluian $2,358 

Forsvth 2, 728 

McWorthy 450 

Rodgers 440 

Thompson r 3,730 

NEW ha:\[pshire. 

Eleazer L, Sarsons. (H. D. 594—59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay. $40.33. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

NEW JERSEY. 

John H. Arey. (H. D. 221-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $20.39. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

NEW MEXICO. 

Fr^vnctsco de Baca. (Anastacio de Baca, administrator.) (H. D. 
551-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 13, 1900. Court 
finds decedent loyal. On property the facts of this case are peculiar. 
It appears that Navajo Indians drove off a flock of sheep belonging 
to tlie decedent : that United States troops recovered some of the 
sheep from the Indians, but instead of restoring them to the owner, 
used them foi- the benefit of the United States. The sheep so recap- 
tured by the troops from the Indians and converted to the use of 



I 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 139 

the Government are found by the court to have been reasonably worth 
$1,825 at time and place of taking. 

This man was left in the position of one whose property lias been 
stolen, and Avhich property is later recovered by a policeman and con- 
verted to the use of the policeman or to use of the Government 
employing him. 

There is a plain liability in this case on part of the Government. 
The claim Avas presented to the Commissary General and rejected. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Edavard Bergmanx. (H. D. ITl-oS-S.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February IT, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal, and that he 
was a captain in Kit Carson's regiment; that in 1862, his company 
being nearly destitute of clothing, he advanced of his own funds the 
sum of $1,200 to buy clothing for them. The court further finds 
that the reports of the Quartermaster General show that no clothing 
was issued for months Avhere ihis company was stationed or operat- 
ing, thus showing the necessity for the action of Capt. Bergmann. 
This money was clearly expended by this captain for the use and 
benefit of the United States GoA'ernment. It is apparent that these 
troops were operating in a locality remote from supplies, and this 
officer, when his men were destitute of absolutely necessary clothing, 
cut military red ta]De by purchasing the supplies with his ]Dersonal 
funds, naturally looking to the Government for reimbursement. 

This claim would seem to be of the very highest order of merit. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

W. J. GooDAviN. ( S. D. 147-62-2. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 
22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. Property 
was taken by proper authority for Army use: worth $2,980. Claim 
placed in hands of counsel for presentation in 1867; he died without 
action on claim: placed in hands of other counsel in 1869: he died 
without action being taken. Ccmrt concludes claim is equitable. 
Claim recently certified and not })reviously considered in connection 
with previous bills. 

AVillia:m J. LiTTELL. (Mary W. Littell. widow.) (H. D. 156- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay. $632.18. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

XEW YORK. 

Luther S. Bryant. (H. D. 210-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay. $45.31. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

George Campbell. (Josephine Campbell, widow.) (H. D. 291- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay. $272.14. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtv-second Congi'essp*. 



140 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

« 

Benjamin Fenton. (Surviving partner of Fenton & Co.) (S. D. 
199-59-2 and S. Eept. No. 330^4-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 

This claim is for rent of certain premises in Memphis, Tenn. The 
firm of Fenton & Co. consisted of Benjamin Fenton and his brother, 
D. W. Fenton, both northern men. This firm had a leasehold estate 
in the property at ISIemphis. United States forces, for Army use, 
occupied the premises from June 6, 1862, until September, 1868. 

In 1870 the firm presented its claim for rent for the entire period. 
It was then thought by the accounting officers that, as the war did 
not technically end until August 20, 1866, and as under the law limit- 
ing jurisdiction of the accounting officers rent could not be paid for 
occupation occurring during the war, that only that part of the claim 
for occupation after August 20, 1866, could be allowed. 

Accordingly the claim was then allowed and paid, covering only 
rent after August 20, 1866, at rate of $2,500 per year. ' 

As a matter of record in Congress it further appears that Fenton 
& Co. presented the rejected part of their claim to Congress as sub- 
ject matter of S. 855, Forty-fourth Congress. That claim was cov- 
ered by Senate Report No. 330, Forty-fourth Congress, first session. 
As then considered, the claim so presented was divided into two 
parts. One item was considered as rent from June 6, 1862, to April 
2, 1866: the other item Avas rent from April 2. 1866, to August 20, 
1866. 

On the theory that the war ended in the State of Tennessee on 
April 2, 1866 (The Protector, 12 Wall., 700), the report on that bill 
recommended that the rent accruing after April 2, 1866, and up to 
August 20, 1866 (beyond which last date rent had been already 
paid), be paid to claimants. The report further recommended that 
no rent be paid for the period of occupation prior to April 2, 1866, 
so that part of claim was again rejected. 

This action in Congress resulted in enactment of a special act ap- 
proved March 3, 1877^ (19 Stats., 538), appropriating $958.32 as rent 
of said premises between April 2. 1866, and August 20, 1866. 

That action still left unpaid, howcA'er. the rent from June 6. 1862. 
to April 2, 1866. 

It is evident that tlie Treasury Department did not report this 
paymtnt so made by special act when tlie claim was pending in the 
Court of Claims, so the court did not take that payment into ac- 
count in making its findings, which covered rent from June 6, 1862, 
to August 20, 1866. 

The court therefore found the rental value from June 6. 1862. to 
August 20, 1866, at rate of $2,500 per year, amounting to $10,520.66. 
From this sum must be deducted said sum of $958.32, paid by 
special act in 1877. Avhich leaves $9,562.34. which it is now i^roposed 
to appropriate in final settlement of this long-pending claim. That 
this much remains due and uni:)aid is plain. 

It may l)e mentioned, also, that the firm of Fenton & Co. con- 
tinued to pay rent for the premises, under its lease, during the period 
in question. This is expressly reported by the court. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 141 

John Fryer. (Anna Cavanaugh, sister and sole heir.) (H. D, 
288-60-1.) BoAvnian Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$60.80. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Theodore Hoes. (Harry W. Hoes, administrator.) (H. D. 260- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $491.08. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Harrison Lockwood. (Emily A. Lockwood, widow.) (H. D. 
247-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
^84.11. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andreav J. McNett. (Abby C. McNett, widow.) (H. D. 678- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $816.77. 
Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martin H. Mullin. (H. D. 575-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $351.68. 

Passed House in Sixty- first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

^ Lucius V. S. Mattison. (H. D. 303-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $490.44. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hamilton S. Preston. (Cornelia P. Beckley and Maud P. Clark, 
daughters and sole heirs.) (H. D. 278-60-1.) Bowman Act. Of- 
ficer's claim for difference in pay, $104.05. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Allen Sheldon. (Alice A. Sheldon, widow.) (H. D. 250-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $274.54. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congiesses. 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

Francis Allison. (E. M. Allison, administrator.) (H. D. 
869-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1888. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $550 were taken for Army 
use. Having been tried under Bowman Act, must have been filed 
with Claims Commission. Appears on page 10 of index of such 
claims. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Esau Berry. (John E. Berry and Lovey T. Williamson, heirs.) 
(S. D. 558-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that present claim- 
ants are his sole heirs ; that timber worth $450 was taken from dece- 



142 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

# 

dent for Army use; that claim was not presented prior to Fift}'- 
seventh Congress owing to illiteracy of decedent. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Raiford Brewington. (Hardv A. Brewington, administrator.) 
(S. D. 471-59-1.) Tucker Act. ^ Sent to court April 28, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent was a free colored man. who 
remained loyal; that supplies worth $530 were taken from him for 
Army use; that he was a colored man Avho was ignorant of his right 
to present the claim to the Southern Claims Commission during the 
two years the commission was open to filing of claims; that he had no 
other opportunity to present the claim save by petition to Congress. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

WiiJLiAM H. BucKLiN. (S. D. 62-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 2(). 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; that a schooner worth $390 Avas taken from him for Army use. 
While not included in the findings of fact, it w^ould appear from the 
petition that claim was made about tAvo years after taking of the 
property. 

Passed vSenate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Ends Case. (Louise C. Smith, administratrix.) (H.D. 442-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court July 11. 1892. Court finds decedent 
loyal ; that supplies Avorth $120 were faken from him for Army use. 
Claim evidently filed with Claims Commission, and appears on page 
45 of index of that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

IsADORE Cohen. (William Cohen, administrator.) (H. D. 
415_00-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court February 10, 1899. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies Avorth $532 were taken for Army 
use. Claim found on page 52 of index of Southern Claims Com- 
mission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Sylvester Dibble. (Lucy A. Dibble, administratrix.) (S. D. 
293-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent Avas loyal; that supplies Avorth 
$705 Avere taken from him by proper authority; that decedent made 
inquiry as to presenting a claim soon after taking of his property. 
but Avas then informed that he could make no claim because he had 
been a slave. From the petition it Avould appear that the property 
was taken after surrender of Gen. Lee. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William Hoaa^ett. (J. W. HoAvett, administrator.) (S. D. 
37-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 24, 1897, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $1,480 were 
taken for Army use; that claim Avas not filed with Claims Commis- 
sion, decedent being illiterate, unable to read or write, and Avorking 
in a remote region in the cedar SAvamps of North Carolina. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 143 

T. L. IjOxe. (Surviving partner of Kobert Love & Son.) (S. D. 
1017-62-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant, T. L. Love, the surviving partner, 
loyal, and also finds his deceased partner, Robert Love, loyal. Cot- 
ton worth $.5,000 was taken and used, by proper authority, as bed- 
ding by troops. The sum fixed by the court represents only the loss 
of the firm for which the Government is responsible. 

As early as 1867 the firm endeavored to have the claim properly 
presented, but their representative failed to prosecute the claim. 

The findings in this case are accompanied by an opinion which is 
of value in showing conditions pertaining to this case and also in 
war claims in general. 

The court, in its opinion, says : 

The use made of the cotton was ;i supply. The Fifteenth Army Corps (of 
fifteen or twenty thousand men) was camped in the immediate vicinity. The 
bales of cotton were taken from storage and cut open and beds were made out 
of it for the use of the troops all over the camp. 

The findings were not certified until January 15, 1913, too late for 
consideration in connection with previous bill. 

Harmon Modlix. (B. A. Critcher, administrator.) (H. D. 146- 
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 190(). Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $293 were taken for Army use. 
Claim found on page 166 of Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

David W. Mortox. (John S. Morton, administrator.) (H. D. 
931-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 19, 1889. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $350 were taken for Army 
use. Claim found on page 170 of index of Claims Commission. 
Claim is for 6,000 cubic feet of timber, which would equal 72,000 feet 
board measure. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Levi T. Oglesby. (Mary Lee Dennis, executrix.) (S. D. 176- 
69-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court first time under Bowman Act, in 
1890; while it had been filed with Claims Commission, it had not 
been ])rosecuted to a final decision there, so court had no jurisdic- 
tion under Bowman Act reference. Last reference was made April 
26, 1904, under Tucker Act, by Senate resolution, in Fifty-eighth 
Congress. Claim had been pending in Fifty-first, Fifty-second, and 
later Congresses for such reference. Court finds decedent loyal. 
Report on property shows a case of hardship. Under military or 
naval orders he sold and delivered to the naval authorities turpen- 
tine worth $588, subject to inspection. Before his turpentine could 
be or was inspected Confederates drove out the LTnited States forces 
and seized part of the turpentine, all but 27 barrels, that were actu- 
ally finally used by the United States naval forces, these 27 barrels 
of turpentine being worth $182. Under the circumstances serious 
doubt arises as to whether this man should be paid for all the tur- 
pentine delivered or only for the portion actually used by United 
States forces. However, as claim has passed both Houses twice pre- 
viously in the smaller sum, that is adopted as the measure of com- 
pensation. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



144 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

« 

George W. Pekkv. (O. H. Perry, administrator.) (S. D. 
187-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent lo5'al; that supplies Avorth $1,350 
were taken from him for Army use; that claim not filed with Claims 
Commission, but was placed in hands of an attorney soon after 
close of war, but what he did does not appear. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William O. Egbards. ( S. D. 280-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. . Claim arose in Ken- 
tucky; claimant now livino- in North Carolina. Court finds claim- 
ant loyal; that supplies Avorth $1,980 were taken from him for Army 
use; no allowance made for boarding Federal soldiers. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

J. A. Eeagan. (H. D. 290-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 15, 1910, by House resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
that supplies worth $240 Avere taken for Army use. Court reports 
claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Jacob West. (PI. D. 347-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
February 26, 1895. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $215 
taken for Army use. Presented to Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

]\rETH0DiST Episcopal Chi'rch South, Beaufort, N. C. (S. D. 
513-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied church and parsonage for hospital and other purposes; that 
rental A^alue, includinir damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $1,280. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Beilaii Peiaiitive Baptist Church, Johnston County, N. C. 
(S. D. 267-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21, 1910, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. Troops, by proper 
authority, tore doAvn the church and used materials in constructing 
a bridge. Building AA'orth $420. Court concludes that claim is 
equitable. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

Presbyterian Church. Lumber Bridge, N. C. (S. D. 137-59-1.)' 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that T^^nited States forces tore doAvn| 
church building and used materials therefrom; building Avorth $1,800^ 

Passed Senate and House in Sixtj^-second Congress. 

Methodist Episcopal Chltjch South, Morehead City, N. 
(S. D. 135-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, bj 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United State 
forces occupied church building about 18 months, and then tore ij 
doAA'ii and used materials secured ; building AVorth $800, together wi< 
use and occupation. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 145 

Diocese OF East Carolina Protestant Episcopal Church (for 
church at ^ags Head). (S. D. 124-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court 
March 3, 1903, by Senate resohition. Court finds church of Na<Ts 
Head was loj^al; that church building was torn down by United 
States forces and materials appropriated; buildino; worth $856. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church, NEA\TiERN, N. C. (S. D. 51-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church building 
greater part of three years for commissary depot; rental value, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

First Presbyterian Church, Newbern, N. C. (S. D. 1069-62-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal: that United States military forces, 
by proper authority, occupied premises for military purposes; that 
a reasonable rental, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, is $3,300. A claim for damages only was presented as early as 
1866, but was rejected. 

The court reports its conclusion that the claim is equitable. 

This case was tried too late for inclusion in earlier bills. 

Primitive Baptist Church, Newport, N. C. (S. D. 192-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 190T, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied the church 
building for hospital purposes and that it was accidentally burned, 
evidently during this occupation ; building worth $350. 

This claim is identical in principle with several mentioned in pre- 
ceding parts of this detailed report. If the Government ought to 
surrender a building, used by proper authority for military purposes, 
in its original condition, then it would seem that this church should 
be paid for its building. This building was not destroyed as an act 
of warfare. Considering that the troops were in possession of the 
building, it would be impossible for the claimant to prove affirma- 
tively any negligence on part of the military authorities. Undoubt- 
edly the mere fact of the accidental destruction may be deemed in 
itself equivalent to a finding of negligence. For reasons stated, this 
claim for $350 is included in the bill. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

Roanoke Island Baptist Church, N. C. (H. D. 747-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 18, 1910, by House resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; troops tore down church building by 
proper authority and used material in erecting a hospital ; building 
worth $330. Court concludes that claim is equitable. 

Tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

Bushrod W. Nash, Trustee or Union Baptist Association (succes- 
sor to Hood Swamp Baptist Church, Wayne County, N. C.) (S. D. 
306-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds Hood Swamp Baptist Church loyal; that in 

19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 10 



146 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

Mar^i, I860, its church building, then nearl}- completed. Avas torn 
down by United States forces and material used in construetiuiy quar- 
ters; buildino^ worth $650: that TTnion Baptist Association is succes- 
sor to Hood Swamp Church. 

Passed Senate in Sixtj'-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

NORTH DAKOTA. 

James W. Mullery. (Martha A. Mullery. widow.) ( H. I). 460- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $-260.;>r). 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

OHIO. 

Henry L. Biddle. (H. D. 282-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $362.44. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jeremiah Cain. (H. D. 55-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 26, 1904. The facts of this case are very peculiar. He 
entered volunteer service in 1861 as private, rose through grades of 
corporal and sergeant to be second lieutenant on January 4, 1863. 
May 26, 1864, while serving at Vicksburg, he was dismissed by special 
orders, by direction of the President, for alleged disobedience of orders 
and neglect of duty. He had been served with no charges and had 
not been brought before any court. It appears that April 11, 1864, 
a notice was published in the Army and Navy Gazette citing him 
to appear before a military commission at Washington within 15 
days to answer charges against him. Claimant had no knowledge of 
that citation or even of existence of that paper. He was on duty 
at Vicksburg at that time. 

After being dismissed from the service Cain started for Wash- 
ington, by way of his home in Ohio, where he secured services of a 
lawyer, who came to Washington with him. A hearing was secured 
before a military commission; Cain was found not guilty of any 
willful disobedience of orders, and the commission recommended his 
restoration to the service. 

June 22, 1864, by special orders, he was restored to his command 
and rejoined his command at Vicksburg, July 15, 1864. He was 
later promoted to be first lieutenant and was mustered out August 
10, 1865. 

Court finds that claimant lost, in expenses and in loss of pay and 
allowances between May 26, 1864, date of dismissal, and July 14, 
1864, a total of $684.34. 

This man seems to have been a good soldier, judging from his 
promotion from private to first lieutenant. It is plain that he was 
shamefully mistreated; he was dismissed without hearing; Avas served 
only by publication with notice to appear before a commission in 
Washington, although the War Department must have known at the 
time just w^here he was serving, at Vicksburg. Further, later events 
showed him not guilty of any offense, and he was restored to service. 

Without necessarily holding that payment of this claim should 
form a precedent, yet under the very peculiar circumstances of hard- 



I 

r CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 147 

ship appearing- here, the committee believes this man should be com- 
pensated for his direct loss in the sum of $684.34. He never had any 
legal remedy in this case. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charles W. Clancy. (Amanda W. Clancy, widow.) (H. D. 
292-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, 
$374.88. ^ •^' 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-first 
Congresses. 

John Hamilton. (H. D. 572-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $272.77. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Barton A. Holland. (H. D. 397-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $182.82. 

Passed Senate in Sixi:ieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

George W. Northup. (H. D. 456-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $482.40. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

David Skeeles. (H. D. 596-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $245.85. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

James R. Smith. (Ellen R. Smith, widow.) (H. D. 108-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $514.71. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church of Gallipolis, Ohio. (S. D. 344-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church building as 
hospital and damaged the same; that reasonable rental, with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $175 ; that a claim was pre- 
sented for rent, damages, and coal to Quartermaster General; that 
$16 was paid for the coal in 1867, but the claim for rent and damages 
was disallowed. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

OKLAHOMA. 

George W. Clark. (H. D. 269-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $106.26. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John S. Coztne. (Robert C. Cozine, heir.) (H. D. 105-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $520.22. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtv-second Congresses. 



148 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 



OREGON. 

John PI Butler. (H. D. 395-59-1.) BoAvman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $417.31. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

James Ashavorth. (William Ashworth and Adam I. Ashworth, 
heirs.) (H. D. 466-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim for differ- 
ence in pay, $44.57. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John H. Black. (H. D. 115-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $361.28. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixt3^-second Congresses. 

John Craig. (H. D. 580-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $88.05. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John A. Danks. (John H. Danks, heir.) (H. D. 271-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $187.81. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Frank E. Foster. (H. D. 112-59-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay $569.52. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Houston. (Eliza J. Houston, widow.) (H. D. 299-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay $136.78. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jacob Johnson. (Milton S. Johnson, son and assignee.) (S. D. 
123-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that United States 
forces took for Army use, at York, Pa., certain gunpowder reason- 
ably worth $580. The claim is entitled Milton S. Johnson, assignee 
of Jacob Johnson, deceased. The petition alleges that Milton S. 
Johnson is the son and assignee of Jacob Johnson. The court fails 
to report how any interest, equitable or otherwise, could be held by 
Milton S. Johnson as assignee in view of the express provisions of 
section 3477, United States Revised Statutes, prohibiting assignment 
of any claim against the Government. Even if that statutory pro- 
hibition should be held not to technically cover the case, it has cer- 
tainly not been the policy of Congress to recognize assignments of 
claims. For this reason it is believed that appropriation should be 
made to the estate of the decedent, Jacob Johnson, leaving any dis- 
tribution to the local courts of probate jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Consrresses. 



CLAIMS UJSTDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 149 

Augustus B. Miller. (H. D. 891-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
was a resident of Pennsylvania during war and loyal. Claimant 
was owner of a certain barge ; on July 3, 1863, while "being towed in 
the Potomac River the barge collided with United States gunboat 
Eutaw and was damaged ; the court finds that claimant's damage on 
account of loss of use of the barge and injury thereto was $1,120. 
Court expressly finds that the collision was without fault of the 
owner of the barge, but occurred through the gunboat becoming un- 
managable. 

It is further reported that within a few days after the collision 
claimant tried to get payment for his loss through the Navy Depart- 
ment, but was informed that it was impossible for that department 
to settle the claim ; that he must wait until the close of the war. It 
was next presented about April, 1898. The claim could not have 
been presented directly to the Court of Claims, because that court 
has no admiralty jurisdiction. There was no tribunal that could have 
entertained or allowed the claim at any time. The claim is evidently 
a just one. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James Millingar. (Henry Millingar and Charlotte Wilson, 
heirs.) (H. D. 234-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 
1906. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States forces, for 
military purposes, used a steam sawmill belonging to the decedent 
and his partner, R. McClay ; that partnership was dissolved in 1864, 
Millingar assuming firm obligations and becoming owner of the mill ; 
that reasonable value of the use and occupation of the mill is $1,771 ; 
that decedent filed a claim before the War Department ; that the de- 
partment found him loyal and recommended payment of $1,771, but 
Millingar would not accept said sum, not considering it a fair allow- 
ance ; that claim was later presented to the Claims Commission, but 
rejected for want of jurisdiction. The court further finds that 
several persons mentioned are children and grandchildren of the 
decedent and his heirs. As the court fails to state the precise interest 
of each heir it is deemed advisable that appropriation be made to the 
legal representatives of James Millingar, deceased, leaving the dis- 
tribution to the local court of probate jurisdiction. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Tonolow^ay Baptist Church, Fulton County, Pa. (S. D. 
248-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that claimant was loyal ; that United States 
forces occupied church property (a large brick building, with seat- 
ing capacity of about 1,000 people) for hospital purposes ; that rental 
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $225. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. James Evangelical Lutheran Church, or Gettysburg, Pa. 
(S. D. 43-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied church building for hospital; that reasonable rental was 



150 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

$150. No allowance is made for incidental damages, as they were 
paid through Quartermaster General in December, 1863. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. Marks German Keformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa. (S. D. 
263-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied church building for hospital; that rental value, with dam- 
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $215. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Trinity German Reformed Church, Gettysburg, Pa. (S. D. 
478-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. 

Court reports claimant loyal, and that United States troops occu- 
pied the premises about a month and a quarter for hospital purposes, 
and that the rental value during that period, and for which no pay- 
ment has ever been made, was $70, which is the amount proposed to 
be now appropriated. 

In 1864 the church was paid the sum of $300 merely to repair the 
building, but that covered no item of rent, so that payment is im- 
material to the present claim save that it precludes any allowance 
now for damages incident to the use and occupation. 

This claim seems to have been overlooked in preparation of prior 
bills. 

RHODE ISLAND. 

WiLLARD H. Greene. (S. D. 167-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court December 18, 1905, by Senate resolution. This case is out of 
the usual. Briefl3% the facts found hj the court are as follows: 

Claimant was a private in volunteer service during Civil War ; he 
was transferred to the position of hospital steward, with P^irst New 
York Light Artillery. That command appears to have been without 
any regular medical officer or surgeon practically all the time for a 
considerable period, specifically mentioned by the court, and during 
that period claimant practically performed the duties of an Army 
surgeon. 

He made application to be appointed medical officer, but no action 
seems to have been taken thereon. He was paid as a private during 
the period mentioned, with extra duty pay of 25 cents per day. Dur- 
ing the greater portion of the time he employed a civilian servant. 
The court reports that if it should be held proper that this man be 
paid as an assistant surgeon with a servant from November 3, 1862, 
to July 9, 1863, there would be due him $701.26, as reported by the 
Auditor for the War Department. 

It appears that the claim was presented to the Auditor for War 
Department and was disallowed. 

While the facts of the claim are unusual it would seem only right 
that this man be paid according to the duties performed rather than 
according to the pay of the position which he occupied. It seems 
to be a case of a man being employed in one capacity and being then 
required to act in a much higher capacity. 



I 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 151 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
Second Congresses. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Angelo Buero. (A. J. Bnero, administrator.) (H. D. 566-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court May 4, 1888. Court finds decedent 
loyal ; that, by proper authority, United States forces took possession 
of decedent's sloop Julia, used the sloop about two months, and dam- 
aged it ; that reasonable value of the use, together Avith damage done, 
w^as $725. Case was tried under Bowman Act, which presupposes 
presentation to Claims Commission; claim appears on page 37 of 
Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nathan Gradick. (J. P. Matthews, administrator.) (H. D. 
1199-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 15, 1907. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies, worth $1,180, were taken for 
Army use. Claim found on page 91 of Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James B. Howard. (Eobert Howard, heir.) (H. D. 713-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court May 4, 1888. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that supplies. Avorth $1,100, were taken from decedent for 
Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commission. From the man- 
ner in Avhich the court has entitled the case it must be necessarily in- 
ferred that Robert B. Howard has proven that he is the heir of James 
B. Howard. 

Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Moses Winstock. (A. Rosenberg, executor.) (S. D. 716-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal; that by proper authorit}^ troops took 
property from him and hauled it away in wagons ; the property was 
worth $16,155, and would seem to have consisted almost entirely of 
tobacco. The conclusion accompanving the findings, as requii-ecl by 
act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 837)," is as follows: 

CONCLUSIONS. 

Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court concludes that tlie claim is an 
equitable one in the sense that the United States received the benefit of the 
supplies for which claim is herein made. 

By express act Congress called upon the court to inform Congress, 
by a conclusion, w^hether claims sent to the court under the Tucker 
Act were legal or equitable, and it would seem that Congress should 
act on the conclusions so reported. Claim certified too late to be con- 
sidered in connection with previous bills. 

Baptist Church of Beaufort, S. C. (S. D. 45-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied church property 
for hospital purposes about 18 months; that rental value, with dam- 
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $2,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congi-esses. 



152 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

St. Helena Episcopal Church or Beaufort, S. C. (S. D. 297- 
61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loj^al ; that United States forces occupied 
church, building for hospital and other purposes; that rental value, 
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $1,150. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Public Schools of Darlington, S. C. (S. D. 237-62-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports that board of trustees of public schools of Darlington, S. C, is 
the successor to St. John's Academy of that place ; that during war 
St. John's Academy, as an organization, was loyal; that United 
States forces occupied buildings and grounds of St. John's Academy ; 
that rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $980. Court reports its conclusion that claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Trinity Protestant Episcopal Churcpi of Edisto Island, S. C. 
(S. D. 205-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; that United States 
forces occupied for military purposes claimant's building; that rental 
value, with repairs made necessary by said occupation, was $1,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtj'-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mount Zion Society, Fairfield County, S. C. (S. D. 136-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 12, 1903. by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied 
church buildings and land for military purposes; that reasonable 
value of the use and occupation was $6,000. It is set forth in the 
petition that this was an educational institution, owning 30 acres of 
land, with a large main college building with three wings, three 
stories high, together with numerous dormitories, etc., which accounts 
for the considerable amount allowed by the court. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church, South, of Hampton 
County, S. C. (S. D. 341-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 
13, 1906, by Senate resohition. Court reports claimant loyal; that 
United States forces took possession of church building, tore the 
building doAvn, and used the materials for various purposes: that 
building was reasonably worth $1,710. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Baptist Church of Hardeeville, S. C. (S. D. 313-59-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court Juno 13, 1906, bj^ Senate resolution. Court 
reports claimant loyal ; that United States forces took possession of 
church building, tore it down, and used material therefrom in build- 
ing winter quarters; building worth $1,050. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Stony Creek Presbyterian Church, of McPhersonville. S. C. 
(S. D. 299-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 190(;. by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces 
took possession of church proi)erty, tore the building down, and used 
the material in constructing barracks; building worth $2,500. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 153 

Court further finds that the troops destroyed bv burning the 
parsonage building belonging to claimant as an act of war, that 
building being worth $1,500. This item has been omitted from the 
bill by the committee, and has been left for consideration with similar 
claims arising from mere destruction. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixtv-second Congress, as to the 
item of $2,500. 

German Lutheran Church of Orangeburg, S. C. (H. D. 
708-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 23, 1906. Court 
finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied claimant's 
church building from about June 1. 1865. until March 20, 1866, for 
hospital purposes. It is evident that this occupation was after actual 
close of the war. Court finds that the reasonable rental value, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $983.33. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

SOUTH DAKOTA. 

John B. Geddis. (H. D. 276-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $391.33. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

TENNESSEE. 

Susan E. Joyner et al. (Heirs of Josiah Anthony.) (H. D. 
173-59-1.) Sent to court March 17. 1904. It appears from findings 
that Josiah Anthony died in 1854: he left a consideral>le estate. One 
Martin was his executor, and in 1860 was also appointed guardian 
of Susan E. Joyner, Mary E. Roberson. Martha F. Luster, and Jane 
F. Crump, the sole heirs of said Josiah Anthony. This guardian 
collected certain funds belonging to his wards and invested same in 
mules and horses, w^hich were taken for Army use in December, 
1862. The stock is found to ha^e been worth $4,520. and the court 
reports that the four owners were loyal. It is obvious that they 
were minors, as they had a guardian during the war. Claim was 
tried under Bowman Act. which means it must have been presented 
either to Quartermaster General or Claims Commission in proper 
time. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John J. Bah.ey. (Emma Bailey, executrix.) (S. D. 28-56- 
1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17. 1897. by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court reports that decedent was loyal; that supplies worth 
$3,353 were taken for Army use; that claim was presented to Con- 
gress in 1885. referred to court in 1886. under Bowman Act. but 
dismissed in 1888 because claim had not been presented to the Claims 
Commission, Quartermaster General, or Commissary General. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Alexander F. Beckham. (Daniel W. Beckham, administrator.) 
(S. D. 65-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that he was killed 



154, CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

during- war; that about the time of his death there was taken from 
him, or from his estate after his death. Army supplies worth $7,880, 
no allowance being made for merchandise, farm implements, or 
household goods taken by way of depredation and without authority. 
From the entire statement it would appear that the property was 
taken just about the time of the decedent's death, and that it is im- 
possible to state definitely wliat Avas taken before his death and just 
what was taken afterwards. It would appear that his surviving' 
children were young, and substantial justice will be done by paying^ 
his administrator the sum mentioned. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

John B. Baird. (H. B. Bond, administrator.) (H. D. 344-62-2.) 
Sent to court March 3, 1903. Court finds decedent loyal: that sup- 
plies worth $2,650 were taken for Army use from decedent; court 
reports conclusion that claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congi'ess. 

James Boro and Mary Boro. ( S. D. 210-59-2.) Tucker Act 
Sent to court April 26, 1904, b}^ Senate resolution. ^Material facts 
stated by court are as follows: 

James Boro, sr., died February 27, 1864, leaving James Boro, jr., 
and Mary Boro, present claimants, then aged, respectively. 10 and 12 
years, as his only heirs. These heirs became owners of a certain 
large four-story brick store building in Memphis. The premises 
were occupied by United States authorities from June 19, 1862, to 
April 1, 1865, and the court expressly reports that the rental value, 
with incidental damages, accruing in favor of these two claimants 
(after death of their father) amounts to $1,800. The rent accruing 
during the lifetime of the father is removed from consideration be- 
cause he was found not loval. No question as to justice of paying 
the $1,800. 

I'assed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. J 

Reece B. Brabson. (Rose Douglass Bullard et al., heirs.) (S. D. 
127-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1908, by Senate 
resolution. The findings are rather complicated. It appears that 
Reece B. Brabson was owner of real estate out of which this claim 
arises. He died Augitst 22. 1863. and his real estate descended to 
seven children, Ada E. Colburn, Maria M. Brabson, Katherine K. 
Waggner, Mary L. Littleton. Rose Douglass Bullard, John Bowen 
Brabson. and a daughter also named Reece Brabson. The son, John 
Bowen Brabson, died at age of 18, in March, 1864; the daughter, 
named Reece Brabson. died in summer of 1864, at age of about 2 
years. 

Of the other five heirs or children the eldest was Ada E. Colburn, 
who, in August, 1863. was under 14 years of age. She and the other 
claimants, other than Jolm Bowen Brabson, are found loyal, evidently 
by reason of their tender years. The court reports that the son, 
John Bowen Brabson, has not been proven loyal. 

After death of Reece B. Brabson, on August 22, 1863, the seven 
children became the owners in common of a large brick residence 
and of two store buildings at Chattanooga, together with a farm of 
about 327 acres near town : also of a frame residence in that town. 



CLAIMS UKDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 155 

In September, 1863, United States forces took possession of the 
residence and of the two store buildings and used same until June 
18, 1805; they also took possession of the frame residence at same 
time and occupied it until it was destroyed by fire, about a month 
later. During occupation of the city property it was damaged, and 
outbuildings torn down and used. It is evident that the farm was 
also occupied. 

The court reports that the reasonable rental value of the buildings 
mentioned during said period, as well as of the tillable part of 
claimants' farm, which was used one season in raising vegetables for 
use in Army hospital, including damages in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, was $6,500. 

No allowance is made on the items of lumber, wood, and rails in- 
cluded in the claim, as they were paid for through the Quartermaster 
General's Office. 

The only question in this case arises from the fact that the occupa- 
tion of the premises began in September, 1863, during the lifetime 
of John Bowen Brabson, then about 17 or 18 years old, who has not 
been found loyal. He lived about six months after the occupation 
began, and it might be technically contended that no allowance should 
be made for his share of the rental during that period. The court 
has not segregated that sum from the remainder of the claim, as it 
might have done. It is believed that under the circumstances a de- 
duction of $300 from the total sum allowed would leave the Govern- 
ment on the safe side of this question. For that reason the committee 
has included only the sum of $6,200 in the bill, although it passed the 
House in Sixty-second Congress in the full sum of $6,500. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Nancy N. B. Bridges. (John L. Smith, administrator.) (H. D. 
165-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $1,520 were taken for Army use. 
Claim appears on page 32 of Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

John C. Brooks. (S. D. 175-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 2. 1907. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. On 
property the facts reported are to effect that this claimant with 
three others owned the fee estate in certain land at Nashville, as the 
heirs of their father. Avho died prior to the Civil War, and subject 
to a life estate in their mother. The premises were occupied by 
United States forces and damaged in the total sum of $2,400, of 
which this claimant's interest was one-fourth, or $600. No allowance 
is made for rent, as the mother owned the life estate during that 
period and makes no claim. Court reports its conclusion that claim 
is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

OcTAviA P. Brooks. (H. D. 198-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent ta 
court May 22, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal : that supplies worth 
$350 were taken for Army use. Having been tried under Bowman 
Act, claim must have been presented to Quartermaster General or 
Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses, 



156 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS;, ETC. 

John Brown. (H. D. 869-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
Janiiaiy 31, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth 
$150 were taken for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mathew Brown. (Leonidas Thompson, administrator.) (S. D. 
d53-59-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 22, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports that decedent was loyal; that supplies 
worth $1,420 were taken for Army use; that claim was not presented 
to Quartermaster General or Claims Commission ; that decedent had 
no knowledge whatever of existence of that commission in the early 
seventies, and that if he had had such knowledge it would have been 
impossible to prosecute his claim by reason of his ill health ; that he 
died in 1872. and none of the parties interested knew how to collect 
the claim. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William Brown. (Eli Marshall, executor.) (H. D. 177-58-3.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 18, 1902. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that supplies worth $80 were taken from him for Army use; 
that represents decedent's one-third interest in property taken from 
him and his coowner Thomas H. Brown. Claim tried under Bow- 
man Act, so it must have been previously presented. Claim found on 
page 36 Southern Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Elizabeth Burke. (Charles C. Burke, administrator.) (S. D. 
231-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1900, by Senate 
resolution. Court found decedent loyal, under a previous Bowman 
Act reference, in 1885. On property court finds that supplies worth 
$812 were taken from decedent for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Thomas P. Butt. (Mitchell H. Butt, heir.) (H. D. 301-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 12, 1904. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that supplies worth $465 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nelson M. Buyers. (George N. L. Buyers, administrator.) (H. D. 
749-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 31, 1907. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $425 were taken for Army 
use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

James F. Calhoon. (S. J. McDowell, administrator.) (H. D. 
638-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 1906. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $290 were taken for Army 
use. Having been tried under Bowman Act, claim must have been 
previously duly presented. It is found on page 41, Claims Commis- 
sion index, under name of James F. Calhoun. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 157 

James M. Campbell. (H. D. 324-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 14, 1889. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $200 were taken for Army use. Being tried under Bowman 
Act, claim must have been duly presented previously. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

S. L. Carpenter. (A. A. Wade, administrator.) (S. D. 86-57-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1900, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $4G8 were taken for 
Army use ; that claim was presented to Quartermaster General, but 
owing to petition being imsigned was not considered ; later again 
presented to Quartermaster General, but too late for consideration. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixtv-second Congresses. 

Felix Carter. (Mrs. Virginia Carter, administratrix.) (H. D. 
345-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 10, 1902. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $1,380 were taken for Army use. 
Claim found on page 45 of Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Melvina a. Carter. (William E. Carter, administrator.) (H. D.. 
822-GO-l.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 10, 1905. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $240 were taken for Army 
use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously 
presented. Petition alleges presentation to Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alexander Cawood. (Effie Cawood, administratrix.) (H, D. 
1424-60-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12, 1907. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $390 were taken for Army 
use. Claim filed with Quartermaster General, and later with Claims 
Commission. Claim appears page 46, Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William H. Cherry. (Edgar Cherry and James M. Heard, 
executors.) (H. D. 34-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 
6, 1888. Court finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $2,787 were 
taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so must have 
been presented to Quartermaster General, as it does not appear on 
Southern Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Chitwood. (C. H. Corn, administrator.) (H. D. 628-59-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 24, 1887. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $290 were taken for Army use. 
Claim appears page 49, claims commission index. ^. ^ 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House m Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congi-esses. 

John W Cloyd. (J. W. Cloyd, administrator.) (H. D. 809- 
60-1 ) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $2,125 
were taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



158 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 



.• 



Sylvanxus Cobble. (H. D. 227-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 21, lOOG. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $475 were taken for Army use. Appears on page 51, Claims 
Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martha C. Cole. (Ida J. Cole, sole heir.) (H. D. 379-58-3.) 
BoAvman Act. Sent to court April 10, 1888. Court finds decedent 
loj'al; that supplies worth $925 were taken for Army use. Claim 
tried under Bowman Act and must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andrew^ A. Colter. (H. D. 363-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 18. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $173 were taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman 
Act, so it must have been previously duly presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixtj^-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Elam C. Cooper. (S. D. 404-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April — , 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
that supplies worth $815 were taken for Army use; claim never pre- 
sented prior to presentation to Congress ; that claimant could not read 
or write and had no knowledge of existence of Southern Claims Com- 
mission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtj^-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Coppinger. (H. D. 228-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 21, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies 
worth $315 were taken for Army use. Filed with Claims Commis- 
sion; appears page 56, Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Daniel Covington. (James H. Covinglon and Benjamin Coving- 
ton, sole heirs.) (H. D. 481-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 9, 1906. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth 
$225 were taken for Army use; that James H. Covington and Benja- 
min Covington are sole surviving heirs. Claim filed with Claims 
Commission ; found on page 57 of that index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William Crutchfield. (Thomas W. Crutchfield. executor.) (S. D. 
125-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 28, 1908, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that United States forces 
occupied certain real estate of decedent; that reasonable rental value, 
with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $3,850; that 
claim was presented to Claims Commission, but items of rent and 
damages were rejected, evidently for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Rebecca Cummings. (J. W. Cummings, administrator.) (H. D. 
171-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 26, 1904. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $656 were taken from her 



CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAX AXD TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 159 

for Aruiy use. it appearing that tliis represents her interest in prop- 
erty taken from her and others. Chiim tried under Bowman Act, so 
it must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Elvina Cuxxyngham. (R. C. M. and W. H. Cunnvngham. execu- 
tors.) (H. D. 498-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 
13, 1900. Court finds decedent loyal : that supplies were taken worth 
$933 for Army use. Claim is found on page'61, Claims Commission 
index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

LucKETT Davis. (C. R. Holmes, administrator.) (H. D. 360-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 27, 1888. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that supplies worth $1,490 were taken for Army use. Claim 
tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Harriet Day. (Woodson H. Webb, administrator.) (H. D. 734— 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 6, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $310 were taken for Army use 
from decedent. Claim presented to Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William H. Dawson. (H. D. 414^60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 26. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $680 Avere taken for Army use. Claim found on page 65, 
Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Robert A. Dickson. (H. D. 848-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 26, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $142 Avere taken for Army use. Claim found page 68, Claims 
Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Martin Dill. (John J. Christ enberry, administrator.) (H. D. 
573_G2-2.) Bow^man Act. Sent to court March 29, 1906. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $160 taken. Claim found 
page 68, Claims Commission index. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Lydia Dillard. (H. D. 626-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 12. 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth 
$100 w^ere taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so must 
have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

' John Doherty. (P. J. McGlynnan. administrator.) (H. D. 915- 
61-2.) Bowman Act. This claim is a consolidation of two claims 



160 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

presented to Qnartermnster General; one was sent to court under 
Bowman Act August 1, 1888: the other was sent to court under 
Bowman Act February 4. 1908. Court finds decedent loyal; that 
supplies worth $1,600 were taken for Army use. Claim was presented 
to Quartermaster General, as above mentioned. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Adaline Elliott. (Jimmie A. Elliott, sole beneficiary.) (S. D. 
129-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces occupied 
real estate of decedent January 5, 1863, to June 4, 1863 ; that reason- 
able rental was $160; that claim was presented to Quartermaster 
General in 1869; court reports that claim is equitable in that the 
Government received benefit of use and occupation mentioned. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Thomas A. Elliott. (Jimmie A. Elliott, sole legatee.) (S. D. 
132-62-2. "» Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces occu- 
pied his real estate as commissary storehouse January 10, 1863-July 
17, 1865; reasonable rental was $1,020; that claim was presented to 
Quartermaster General in 1865 and dismissed for want of jurisdic- 
tion; was again presented in 1866 to the Secretary of War and 
recommended for allowance; later presented to Forty-second and 
later Congresses; court reports claim equitable in that Government 
received benefit of use and occupation mentioned. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Warham Easley. (H. D. 235-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
March 4, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth $2,807 
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act and must have been 
previously presented. 

Passed" Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Edward W. Eggleston. (H. D. 389-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court July 10. 1888. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $590 taken for Army use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so 
must have been previouslv presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph Ewing. (H. D. 299-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 12, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth 
$90 taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so claim must 
have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. , > 

Lemuel Farmer. (John B. McEwen, executor.) (H. D. 358- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6, 1888. Court finds de- 
cedent loval ; that supplies worth $340 taken for Army use. Tried 
under Bowman Act and must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 161 

Archie B. Forbess. (W. F. Forbess, administrator.) (H. D. 
378-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth $2,600 
were taken for Army use by proper authority ; part of this property 
was cotton, but in view of the explicit findino; of the court as to the 
nature of the taking for Army use it is believed that this propertv 
should be considered an Army supply; probably taken for hospital 
purposes. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

Rial Foster. (H. D. 627-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 12, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal: supplies worth $135 
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, hence must hiv,e 
been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, an I 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hiram Gailey. (Julia Gailey, sole heir.) (H. D. 122-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 26, 1904. Court finds decedent 
loyal: supplies worth $232 taken for Army use. Case tried under 
Bowman Act. so must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congi-esses. 

Z. H. German. (John W. Harvey, jr., administrator.) (H. D. 
225-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 'court March 30, 1888. Court 
finds decedent loyal; supplies Avorth $500 taken for 9rmy use; tried 
under BoAvman Act, so must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John G. Henson (guardian of Mrs. Catherine J. Gilson, insane, 
and administrator of Samuel L. Gilson.) (H. D. 557-59-2.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court March 26, 1892. Court finds Catherine J. 
Gilson and Samuel L. Gilson loyal; that supplies worth $945 were 
taken from them for Army use. It appears that claims were pre- 
sented to Quartermaster General. Evidently Mrs. Gilson is now in- 
sane and represented by her guardian. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House m Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Minna H. Glassie. (S. D. 191-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3. 1901. by Senate resolution. Court finds Minna H. Glassie 
and her decedent. Joseph C. Nash, loyal ; that their cooAvner, Emma 
Nash, was not loyal. The three persons mentioned owned land from 
which timber worth $2,115 was taken. One third interest, belonging to 
Emma Nash (not loyal) , is eliminated. The court reports that Minna 
H. Glassie is entitled to the other two-thirds, evidently in her own 
right and as heir of the decedent, Joseph C. Nash. Therefore th^' 
sum of $1,410 should be paid to Minna H. Glassie. It is true that the 
court does not report the facts Avhich prove Minna H. Glassie to be 
the owner of two-thirds interest; but that is a matter of evidence and 
Congress certainly has a right to rely upon the statement of the court 
as to her interest. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
9,nd Sixty-second Congresses. 
19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 11 



162 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. I 

Charles GorniAKDT. (George "\V. Pearson, administrator.) (H. 
1). 542-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 0. 1006. Court 
finds decedent loyal; that supplies (leather) worth $1,575 were taken 
from him for Army use. Claim presented to Claims Commission 
and was previously presented in 1868 to a State commission of Ten- 
nessee and was approved by Gov. Brownlow. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Ella M. Guy. (H. D. 668-62-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court 
INIarch 2, 1885. Court finds claimant loyal ; supplies worth $6,442 
taken for Army use by proper authority. Claim certified too late for 
c(msideration in connection with previous bills. 

George B. Harlak. (Peter H. Harlan, administrator.) (H. D. 
aT-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 6. 1906. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $1,060 were taken for Army use. 
From the statement of case it would seem that claim was rejected by. 
Claims Commission because of bankruptcy of the then beneficiarj-, 
which was no reason at all. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Daniel B. Harold, (D. N. Kelley, administrator.) (H. D. 
908-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 18, 1910, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that timber was taken from 
him for military purposes, by proper authority, worth $1,265; that 
claim W'as presented to Claims Commission and was later sent to 
court under Bowman Act, and still later sent under Tucker Act. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas C. Hawley, (James C. Anderson, administrator.) 
(S. D. 242-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth 
$1,030 were taken for Army use; that soon after close of war claim 
was presented to a State claims commission, was favorably consid- 
ered and approved by the governor. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. J 

John Haynes. (W, O. Batey, administrator.) (H, D, 413- 
00-1,) Bowman Act, Sent to court May 1, 1888, Court finds de- 
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $675 were taken for Army use. 
The fact that claim was tried under Bowman Act shows it must have 
been previously presented to Quartermaster General, as it does not 
appear on index of Claims Commission, 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

F. S. Heiskell. (E. M. Rogan, administrator.) (H. D. 796- 
00-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 16, 1902. Court 
finds Heiskell loyal; that real estate in which he owned an interest 
was occupied for guardhouse purposes; that grain in which he 
owned an interest was also taken ; that Heiskell's interest in rental 
value and value of the grain was $390. Being tried under Bowman 
Act claim must have been previously presented. Claim appears page 
108 Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 163 

John Henson. {^V. R. Henson. administrator.) (H. D. 333- 
59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $2,990 were taken for Army use. 
Tried under Bowman Act, and therefore must have been previously 
presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John A. Herrod. (H. D. .502-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 17, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $400 were taken for Army use. Tried uiuler Bownuin Act. 
so must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John W. Hester. (John T. Hester, administrator.) (S. D. 
271-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal : that property worth $1,190 
was taken for Army use. It is alleged in petition that claim was not 
presented to the Claims Commission, because prior to the establish- 
ment of that commission decedent had passed through bankruptcy, 
which precluded favorable consideration by that commission. This 
fact of bankruptcy was not reported by the court. While it is not 
the custom of the committee to go behind the findings of the court, 
in this case the files of the court have been exhibited to the committee, 
showing that record proof was submitted to the court showing the 
bankruptcy mentioned. This material fact ought to have been re- 
ported by the court. At any rate, the findings show the claim to be 
just. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Chari.es W. Hewgley. (H. D. 568-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court July 10, 1888. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $580 were taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, 
so must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John R. Hickman. (J. M. Nelson, administrator.) (H. D. 
906-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $195 were taken for Army 
use. Claim appears page 110 index of Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Catherine Hopson. (J. B. Carter, administrator.) (H. D. 
18-62-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 28, 1906. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $90 were taken for Army 
use. Tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously pre- 
sented. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Thomas Hord. (Sarah Bibb et al., heirs.) (H. D. 32-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court February 3, 1903. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that supplies worth $2,913 were taken for Army use. The 
claim is for cotton, which was taken for hospital purposes, and must 



164 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 

• 

therefore he considered an Army supph\ Tried under Bowman Act^ 
so must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Brice M. Hughes. (R. P. Moss, administrator.) (H. D. 
460_(jo_2.) BoM-man Act. Sent to court March 6. 1888. The find- 
ings of the court are not as clearly drawn as the}^ should have been. 
Careful examination shows that Brice Hughes. William Hughes, and 
Mrs. Sallie M. ¥j. Ewing were loyal: that supplies were taken, 
wherein the three persons mentioned owned together a three-fourths 
interest, amounting to $900. 

As Moss appears to be administrator only of Brice M,- Hughes, 
appropriation should be made as follows: 

To Mrs. Sallie M. E. Ewiug. Wlllijuu Hughes, and Brice M. Hughes, deceased, 
late of Williiinisou County, in equal shares, nine hundred dollars. 

Pas.sed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

JoiTN Hughes. (H, D, 244-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay. $43.33, 

l*assed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hugh C. Jackson. (Baxter Smith, administrator.) (H. D. 
57-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 15, 1906. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; that supplies worth $2,795 were taken for Army 
use. Claim presented to Commissary General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

David Jameson. (Robert C. Jameson, administrator.) (S. D. 
335_57_1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 2, 1900, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that he was half owner of a 
building in Memphis, which was occupied for Army purposes from 
July 31, 1862. to August 1. 1863; that reasonable rental value was 
$1,800, of which decedent would be entitled to $900; that claim was 
first presented to Congress in 1874, and was sent to court under 
Bowman Act in 1884. and later dismissed. Cause for dismissal of 
Bowman Act case was evidently lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry Johnson. (J. E. Smalling, administrator.) (H. D. 542- 
6-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 23, 1908. Court finds 
decedent loyal : that supplies worth $450 were taken for Army use. 
Claim previously presented to Quartermaster General and Commis- 
sary General, and also to Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Richard M. Johnson. (H. D. 573-60-1.) Bowman Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay. $183.26. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mrs. Pettie Light Johnston and Scrappy Light Bradshaw. 
(H. D. 58-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. Court 
finds these two claimants loyal; that supplies were taken from them 
and their coowners for Arlnv use: that the interests of these two 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 165 

claimants therein amount to $327.50. Claim presented to Quarter- 
master General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Natha>-iel W. Jones. (S. D. 431-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court June 15. 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; that supplies worth $480 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Henry J. Kinzel. (H. D. 473-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court January 9, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $60 were taken for Army use. Claim filed with Quarter- 
master General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Krider. (E. M. McNamee, administrator.) (H. D. 327- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 12, 1891. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $221 were taken for Army use. 
Being tried under Bowman Act claim must have been presented to 
Commissary General, as it is not on Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

WiLLiA^i H. Landrum. (H. D. 740-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court January 9, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies 
worth $257 were taken for Army use. Owing to fact that this same 
man was once paid a claim the committee found it necessary to in- 
vestigate this case, to avoid any possible second payment. This in- 
vestigation showed that this man filed one claim with Quarter- 
master General and another with Commissary General. The Quarter- 
master General claim was paid in 1905. The present claim is for 
commissary supplies, and is an altogether ditt'erent claim from that 
which was paid. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtj'-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Anis Lawrence. (H. D. 362-59-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court 
March 2, 1891. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth $415 
were taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, Avhich means it 
must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joe Lester. (Maria Lester, widow.) (H. D. 1145-60-2.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court January 30, 1906. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that supplies worth $225 were taken for Army use. Tried 
under Bowman Act ; therefore was previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Abner D. Lewis. (S. D. 85-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
first time under Bowman Act in December, 1884; claimant was found 
loyal in 1886, but case was dismissed as to supplies taken in Arkan- 
sas, because claim for that property had not been presented to Claims 
Commission. An allowance was made under that reference for 
property taken in Tennessee, as that claim had been filed before 
Claims Commission. June 5, 1896, the claim for ]H-operty taken in 
Arkansas was referred bv Senate resolution. 



166 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Court finds claimant loyal; that supplies worth $5,080 were taken 
in Arkansas for Army use, exclusive of cotton, no allowance being 
made for that item. 

It havinfy been noted by the committee that this man had been paid 
one claim, it became necessary to carefully investigate the present 
one to avoid any possible duplication of payment. Investigation 
shows that this man had a farm in Arkansas and another in Ten- 
nessee, and that property Avas taken from both farms. His home 
was in Tennessee. He filed a claim before the Claims Commission 
for property taken from the Tennessee place; that claimi was re- 
jected by the commission because he had passed through bankruptcy. 
Evidently after that experience with his Tennessee claim Lewis did 
not deem it necessary to then waste further money in the futile effort 
to prosecute his Arkansas claim before that commission. Having 
passed through bankruptcy, this man could not possibly have secured 
payment of this claim before that commission. This claim is entirely 
distinct from that which was paid. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Elizabeth Lewis. (H. D. .380-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court May 12, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal ; that supplies worth 
$220 were taken for Army use. Claim filed with Quartermaster 
General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Benjamin LiLLARD. (Benjamin F. Lillard, administrator.) (H. D. 
148-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 18, 1903, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies Avorth $16,865 
were taken for Army use. exclusive of item of cotton, as to which no 
allowance was made. "\"\niile not so reported by the court, the claim 
IS found on page 144 of Claims Commission index, showing it was 
filed with that commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Charity M. Locke. (A. J. Williford, administrator.) (S. D. 
01_5S-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 27, 1901, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $695 
were taken for Arm^^ use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Ja3ies G. Logan. (R. D. Grizzle, administrator.) (H. D. 346- 
62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 15, 1892. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal; that supplies worth $440 were taken for Army use. 
Tried under Bowman Act, so must have been previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

John McClarin. (C. R. McClarin, administrator.) (H. D. 80- 
62-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court August 1, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that supplies worth $320 were taken for Army use. 
Tried under Bowman Act, hence previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

George W. McGrew. (B. F. McGrew. administrator.) S. D. 150- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that supplies worth $7,315 were 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC, 167 

taken for Army use; that claim was presented to Quartermaster 
General in 1875. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

David V. Marney. (W. A. Simpson, administrator.) (H. I). 
902-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court 
finds decedent loyal : supplies worth $867 taken for Army use. Claim 
filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William M. Mayfield. (O. S. Shannon, administrator.) (H. D. 
384-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court finds 
decedent loyal ; supplies worth $650 taken for Army use ; claim filed 
with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James E. Meacham. (S. D. 190-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 26, 1904. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; that his premises at Chattanooga were occupied for Army use 
and buildings torn down and materials used; rental value during oc- 
cupancj^ ancl value of materials taken by Army are $750. Could not 
have been collected before Quartermaster General or Claims Com- 
mission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtieth, 
Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Patrick G. Meath. (S. D. 180-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court June 5, 1900, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant 
loyal; that United States forces occupied real estate described in peti- 
tion for two years and a half; also took property of kinds described 
in petition; also used and damaged the steamboat Le Grand; all 
of reasonable worth, $27,280. Court further reports that a claim for 
$36,947 was presented to Claims Commission, but did not include the 
items of rents or damage to property nor use or damage of steamboat ; 
presented to Congress as early as Fifty-fourth Congress. Claims 
Commission and Quartermaster General could not have allowed the 
present claim for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

City of Memphis. Tenn. (S. D. 75-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court March 2. 1903, by Senate resolution. The material facts re- 
ported by the court are : 

United States forces occupied certain real estate belonging to the 
city for militai-y purposes, for quarters, barracks, supply depot, and 
for manufacture of stipj)lies, etc. Exact dates are shown in the find- 
ings. Occupation of some of the premises lasted several years after 
close of war. 

In 1878 the city was paid the sum of $9,358.99 as rent of premises 
after April 2, 1866. but has received nothing as rent accruing prior 
to that date. 

This claim is for rent from January 1, 1863, to April 2. 1866, and 
court reports rental value during that time amounts to $21,192.88, 
that being the sum the city would have received from its regular 
tenants had they not been dispossessed b}' the Government. 



168 CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

The last finding of the court is to effect that Tennessee was ex- 
cepted bv President Lincoln from his prochiniation of Januarj'^ 1, 
1863. designating States then in rebellion, and for that reason other 
claimants were paid rent in Memphis. 

The court has not found the city to have been loyal throughout the 
war, but under the circumstances that is immaterial, just as it would 
be in case of the city of Baltimore, mentioned in considering the 
Maryland claims. 

This is shown by decision of Court of Claims in case of Xeal v. 
United States (21 C. Cls. Kept., 240). Eeferring to the emancipation 
proclamation of President Lincoln (12 Stat., 1268), the court said: 

On the 1st of January. lSti3. the President issued the ])roelamation of emanci- 
])ation, wherein he recited the provisions above referred to of the preceding 
jtroclaniation. and declared that in accordance with his purpose, '•publicly 
proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days." he did " order and designate 
as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are 
this day in rebellion against the United States the following," and Tennessee 
was not one of them. 

After reciting Aarious .acts of Congress whereby Tennessee was 
treated thereafter as a loyal State and as though it had never been 
disloyal, the court further said: 

Upon this executive and legislative action, and for the reasons set forth in 
Heflebower's case (just decided), of which this is a sequel, the court bases Its 
conclusion that on the 1st January, 1863. the State of Tennessee ceased to be 
hostile territory, and from that time can not be regarded as the seat of war 
within the meaning of the third section of the Bowman Act. 

It seems very plain that if Tennessee was not in rebellion after 
January 1. ISC):] — if it was not disloyal territory, as decided by the 
court — then the city of Memphis, in that State, Avas just as much en- 
titled to receive pay for use of its property as Avould have been the 
city of Xew York or Chicago in other loyal States. 

As before mentioned, the claim was made to the Quartermaster 
(leneral and Avas alloAved, as he thought, to the extent which he 
could alloAV it under theri existing conditions and constructions of 
the laAv. 

The claim is just, and CA'ery fact has been reported by the court. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Felicia Z. Metcalf, Louisa Z. Sansom, and Mary D. Z. Gaither. 
(S. D. 346-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 24. 1911. 
The printed findings in this case are entitled " Octavia Z. Bond and 
others." The reported facts are, in brief, as f oHoavs : 

Felicia Z. Metcalf. Louisa Z. Sansom, and ISIary D. Z. Gaither 
were loyal by reason of tender years; their cooAvners (apparently 
their sisters), Octavia Z. Bond and Virginia Z. Wilson, Avere not 
loyal. 

United States forces, by proper authority, occupied real estate be- 
longing to the five oAvners mentioned; reasonable rental value, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $15..')00. 

The court fails to set forth the computation as to the relative inter- 
ests of each of the five oAvners. Each would take one-fifth of the 
total amount found, or $3,100. Eliminating the interests of the tAvo 
owners who were found not loyal, it follows that the three loyal 
OAvners, Felicia Z. Metcalf. Louisa Z. Sansom, and Mary D. Z. 
Gaither should be paid each $3,100, or a total of $9,300. in equal 
shares. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 169 

It would appear that Mary D. Z. Gaitlier is deceased, but the court 
fails to i-eport explicitly who are her heirs. For this reason appro- 
priation should be made for her interest to her estate, leaving dis- 
tribution to be made by the proper probate court. 

The court further reports that claim was presented to Quarter- 
master General in 1864 and rejected ; that claim is equitable. 

Case was tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

James P. Moore. (Mora B. Fariss. administratrix.) (H. D. 
322-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 26, 1904. Court 
finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $2,100 taken for Army use. 
Tried under Bowman Act, therefore must have been previously 
presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj'-second Congresses. 

Hexry M. Neely. (John H. Neely, administrator.) (H. D. 
690-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 4, 1908. Court 
finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $5,450 taken for Army use. 
Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Samuel B. Nelson. (Louis Nelson, administrator.) (H. D. 
119-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1904. Court finds 
decedent loyal; supplies worth $2,170 taken for Army use. Tried 
under Bowman Act; hence previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty- second Congresses. 

B. B. Neville. (C. A. Russell, administratrix.) (S. D. 14-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 21, 1900, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $5,282 taken for Army 
use. Claimant testifies as reason for not earlier presenting claim that 
she understood no claims would be paid unless accompanied by 
vouchers. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

OsAVELL P. Newby. (Mrs. Mary K. Henry et al., heirs). (S. D. 
179_59_2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court June IT, 1886, 
under Bowman Act; was dismissed in 1896 for lack of jurisdiction. 
March 21, 1900, was referred, under Tucker Act, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal ; that United States forces occupied 
decedent's real estate in Memphis about 2^ years; reasonable rental 
value was $4,500. Court reports presentation to Congress prior 
to enactment of Tucker Act ; that means claim was presented before 
there was any jurisdiction to entertain it. The heirs are Mrs. Mary 
K. Henry, Mrs. Alice A. Pope, Mrs. Jennie Alexander, and Nannie 
Newby. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

W. ^y. Newhouse. ( Francis M. Newhouse, administrator.) (H. D. 
445-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 26. 1895. Court 
finds decedent loyal: that supplies worth $575 taken for Army use. 
Claim filed with 'Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 



170 CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

John Xorth. (Silas H. Henry, executor.) (H. D. 1297-61-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal ; supplies worth $791 taken for Army use. 
Decedent tried in his lifetime to present his claim by a receipt for 
part of property. Court reports conclusion that claim is equitable. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Charles X. Ordavay. (J. Minnick Williams, administrator.) 
(H. D. 863-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 7, 1888. Court 
finds decedent loyal; supplies worth $3,025 taken for Army use. 
Claim found page 178, Claims Commission index. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Oa'erton Hotel Co. (S. D. 6-55-2.) Tucker Act. This claim 
was first sent to court under Bowman Act March 4, 1885. It was 
dismissed under that reference for lack of jurisdiction, because it 
was a claim for rent of Memphis property, and the occupancy began 
Jime 6, 1862, while Memphis Avas still " seat of war," and because 
the Bowman Act excluded from court's jurisdiction claims arising 
from occupation of real estate at " seat of war." The decision of the 
court refusing to consider the claim under Bowman Act is found in 
case of Overton Hotel Co. v. United States (23d Court of Claims 
R^pt., 186.) 

Later claim was sent to court under Tucker Act by Senate resolu- 
tion June 11, 1896. As first presented claim Avas made for rent only 
from January 1, 1863, AThen Tennessee ceased to be " seat of war," to 
September, 1865. The court then said that the occupation haA'ing 
begun in June, 1862, it must dismiss the claim, under the BoAAnnan 
Act, CA^en- though the period for Avhich rent was asked besfan January 
1. 1863. 

Under the Tucker Act trial the court finds that Federal forces 
occupied Memphis June 6. 1862. After stating that fact and some- 
thing of preA'ious histoiy of the claim, the court reported : 

The property was then immediately oocnpied by the United States forces, and 
its use as a hospital was continued (not only for their own sick and wounded 
soldiers, but also for those of the Confederate Army found there) until Septem- 
ber. 1865. when it was surrendered to the claimant corporation. The cround 
floor of the building was intended for shops; second and upper stories were 
intended for a hotel. 

The buildinp; had not been entirely completed when occupied as aforesaid. 
The hotel had been leased (before the occupancy aforesaid) to James P. M. 
Stetson for the term of five years from 1861 at an annual rental of .$20,000. 

A reasonable rental of this building for hospital pui-poses during the period 
in question was $20,000: the rental at this rate from January 1. 1863. to Sep- 
tember 1, 1865, is fifty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars 
(53,333), for which no payment appears to haA'e been made. 

It will be noted that the court finds : 

1. Occupation from June 6. 1862, to September 1, 1865. 

2. That rental value Avas $20,000 per year. 

After stating those facts, however, the court computed the rental 
for the period betAveen January 1, 1863, and September 1. 1865. as 
amounting to $53,333, which computation did not include the period 
from June 6, 1862, to January 1, 1863, This rather peculiar action by 
the court Avill be explained by examination of the Senate resolution of 
reference, which is set out by the court, and which in terms refers the 
claim to the court — 

to find and rejiort to the St'iiat(> the facts bearing uiion tlie merits of the --laim 
as to the term of occniiancy of the said Overton Hotel from the 1st of January. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 171 

1863, at which date the said Court of Claims having determined that the State 
of Tennessee ceased to be hostile territory, and therefore not to be regarded as 
rhe seat of war within the meaning of the third section of the Bowman \ct 
(See Neal r. U. S., C. Cls. E.. 21. y.. 240). and the rental value of said property 
during said term of occupancy, and all other facts contemplated by the pro. 
visions of said act. 

It is seen that the resohition of reference expressly directed the 
court to report the rental value from the 1st of January, 1863. For 
that reason the computation by the court began with that date. At 
the same time, however, the court reported the further fact that the 
occupancy actually began June 6. 1862. The court could not have 
gone further than it did under the peculiar wording of the resolution 
of reference. 

A¥hen it was later considered by Congress these details were ap- 
parently overlooked, as appropriation was made in the omnibus 
claims bill approved March 3. 1899 (30 Stats., 1189), in the follow- 
ing language: 

To Amos Woodruff, president of the Overton Hotel Company, of Memphis, 
Tennessee, for use of hotel as military hospital from January first, eighteen 
hundred and sixty-three, to September first, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, 
fifty-three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars. 

From these facts it is clear that the company has never been paid 
for that period of occupancy from June 6, 1862, to January 1. 1863, 
which, at the annual rental value fixed by the court, would be $11,388. 

It has been suggested that the payment of $53,333 in 1899 operated 
to extinguish the entire claim ; but the committee does not agree with 
that idea as the appropriation expressly stated the period of occu- 
pancy for which the payment was made, thereby necessarily exclud- 
ing from consideration at that time any other or different period of 
occupancy. Stated otherwise, it is- plain that the sum of $11,388 still 
remains due the company, never having been paid as j^et. 

The very fact that the previous payment stated in so many words 
that it covered only a certain described period of occupancy, prevents 
that previous payment from acting as a bar to payment of the present 
claim. Had the other appropriation stated that the sum of $53,333 
was appropriated in full payment for all occupancy of the premises, 
then acceptance of that sum would have forever settled the whole 
claim; but under the wording of the previous appropriation, it can 
not be considered as covering more than the occupancy described in 
the act itself, i. e., January 1. 1863. to September 1, 1865. 

There is no room for question as to the facts, as they have all been 
reported by the court. They show this company to be entitled to 
$11,388 at the present time. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Ai^xANDER M. Owen. (H. D. 441-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court April 19, 1898. Court finds claimant loyal ; supplies worth 
$40 taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act; hence was pre- 
viously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mary Parker. (H. D. 176-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 26, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $656 



172 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

* 

taken for Arm}^ use. Claim tried under Bowman Act, so was pre- 
viously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henly Patton. (H. D. 383-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
January 31, 1907. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $200 
taken for Army use. Claim presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in SixtA^-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James L. Paul. (James T. Moore, administrator.) (S. D. 412- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court ]\Iarch 3. 1905, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court reports decedent loyal : Army supplies worth $975 taken ; 
claim presented to Quartermaster General. Court reports that claim 
is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

JoHx R. Pearson. (A. P. Young, administrator.) (H. D. 233- 
59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9. 1906. Court finds 
decedent loyal; supplies worth $2,579 taken for Army use. Case 
tried under Bowman Act; hence was previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry Pepper and Elizabeth H. Cle^-eland. (S. D. 472-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 17. 1906. by Senate resolution. 
Facts found by court are as follows : 

lu 18G2 William Pepiier died intestate, leaving surviving liini as only heirs 
three children, Mary Ann Tejiper (later Mrs. Webster), born March. 1848; 
Henry Pepper, born July, 1849: and Elizabeth H. Pepper (now Cleveland), 
born February, 1851. These three children are found loyal. After the death 
of their father, and while title was vested in these three children. Army sup- 
plies worth .$1,875 were taken from them. Mrs. Webster is now deceased, and 
her brother, Henry Pepper, and her sister, ;\Irs. Elizabeth H. Cleveland, pres- 
ent claimants, are her only heirs, to wh<im aiiiirojiriation should be made. 
These three claimants were .voung during the short time the Claims Commis- 
sion was open to filing of claims, and one did not attain majority until that 
time had partly elapsed. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress, 

Octavia R. Polk. (S. D. 326-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 3. 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
supplies worth $2,919 taken for Army use. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

XiMROD Porter, (Thomas L. Porter, administrator.) (H. D. 321- 
62-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court July 30. 1886. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal ; supplies worth $3,160 taken for Army use. Claim filed 
with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Washington Pryor. (Marv A. Prvor. administratrix.) (H. D. 
672-62-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1906. Court re- 
ports decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $820 taken. Claim pre- 
viously presented to Commissary General ; was once presented to a 
military claims board at Chattanooga. Tenn., which made an allow- 
ance of $1,467.20 in 1864. which was never paid. 

Claim tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 



\ 



I 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 173 



William Raines. (H. D. 868-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
February 9, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $155 
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so must have been 
previously filed. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

James S. Read. (Frank Read, administrator.) (H. D. 386-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court April 20. 1888. Court finds decedent 
loyal; Army supplies Avorth $715 taken. Tried under Bowman Act, 
so must have been previously filed. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

William H. Reagan. (S. D. 713-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 3, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant 
loyal. He served as corporal and sergeant in Tennessee Volunteer 
Cavalry. He rode his own horse, and in battle, when his company 
was attacked, was compelled to abandon the horse, which was not 
thereafter recovered. The horse was worth $50 at that time and 
place. Claim filed in 1883 Avith Third Auditor, but then rejected for 
insufficient proof. 

The court reports as its conclusion that, under circumstances speci- 
fied, claimant could have prosecuted his claim in the court under its 
general jurisdiction; that claim is equitable, as horse was lost in 
exigencies of services during battle, witliout fault of claimant. 

This would appear to be a claim Avhich was legal, and is undoubt- 
edly equitable, 
m Claim tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Lewellen Rhodes. (T. N. Rhodes, administrator.) (H. D. 660- 
60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 10, 1888. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal ; supplies worth $290 taken for Army use. Tried under 
Bowman Act, so was previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Margaret Robertson. (J. G. Robertson, administrator.) (H. D. 
' 531-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court January 9, 1906. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $900 taken. Presented to 
Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mrs. Jane Elizabeth Rodes. (John B. Atchison and Clifton R. 
Atchison, heirs.) (H. D. 888-59-1.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court 
August 1, 1888. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth 
$2,140 taken from her. John B. Atchison and Clifton R. Atchison 
present parties in interest. Claim found on page 202. Claims Com- 
mission index. o- /> 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

James W. Roulston. (Laura E. Roulston. administratrix.) 
(H. D. 404-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court July 10, 1888. 
Court finds decedent loyal : Army supplies worth $272 taken from 
him. Claim rejected by Claims Commission because decedent had 
passed through bankruptcy. Was later presented to the Fiftieth 



174 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Congress. The ground of rejection by Claims Commission wa- 
■wholly untenable. 

Passed the Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Thomas D. Ruffin. (S. D. 46S-o9-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 2G, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; Army supplies worth $1,400 taken, no allowance being made 
for cotton. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

W. J. Saavyers. (S. D. 3-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
April 26, 1004, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal, he 
having been born in August. 1850. being less than 6 years old in 
April, 1865. Court further reports that he was owner of one-fifth 
interest in an undivided estate from which timber was taken for 
Army use; that his one-fifth interest in the property so taken 
amounted to $1,908. Claim for the entire value of property taken 
was filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Julia Moore Seldon. (S. D. 99-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court July 5, 1898, by Senate resolution. Court finds that Mrs. Julia 
Moore Seldon (formerly Driver) did not attain majority until some 
years after the war and rendered no aid or comfort to the Rebellion. 
She was under 18 years of age at time of surrender in April, 1865. 
In case of a girl of her age, the finding that she gave no aid to Re- 
bellion must in reason be regarded as practically equivalent to an 
affirmative finding of loyalty. 

During the war this girl owned a one-half interest in certain real 
estate at Memphis, Tenn., containing valuable improvements; prop- 
erty was occupied by United States forces from January 1, 1863, to 
April 1, 1866, part of the time as Gen. Grant's headquarters and there- 
after as hospital. Total rental value during this period was $5,850, 
of which one-half, or $2,925, belongs to the claimant. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

W. W. Sharp. (C. H. Com, administrator.) (H. D. 630-59-2.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 4, 1887. Court finds decedent 
loyal; Armj'^ supplies worth $1,248 taken. Claim filed with Claims 
Commission, appearing on page 210 of published index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Smith, (William M. Moss, administrator.) (H. D, 
387-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by 
House resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth 
$1,600 taken. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Margaret E. Smith. (H. D. 385-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court February 4, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army sup- 
plies worth $860 taken. Filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 175 

Warrex F. Speed. (John M. Speed, heir.) (H. D. 642-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 12. 1901. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal: supplies worth $310 taken. Tried under Bowman 
Act: hence must have been previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Sallte B. Stamper. (H. D. 877-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 17, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal: supplies worth 
$1,110 taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act; necessarily 
previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Mark Stoxe. (William Stone, heir.) (H. D. 300-59-1.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court Jamuiry 12, 1901. Court finds claimant 
loyal: Army supplies worth $110 taken. Claim rejected by Quarter- 
master (xeneral. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

M. T. SwiCK. (S. D. 287-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
in March. 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
Army supplies worth $1,985 taken from him. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Mary F. Swixdell. (North Memphis Savings Bank, adminis- 
trator.) (S. D. 559-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 7, 
1910, by Senate resolution. Court reports that decedent (formerly 
Mary F. Morris) was loyal; that United States forces occupied her 
real estate in Memphis, exact months being designated in petition: 
that rental value, w^ith damages incident thereto, was $650. Court 
further reports claim presented to Quartermaster General in 1867 
and rejected for lack of jurisdiction; also presented to State Claims 
Commission and approved by that commission; referred to court 
some years ago under BoAvman Act (apparently in 1902). It would 
appear that this claimant started to prosecute the claim as early as 
1867, but as yet without success. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Isaac Tipton. (Clarissa H. Tipton, administratrix.) (H. D. 
230-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 3, 1903. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $82 taken. Tried under 
Bowman Act; hence was previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

George Todd. (H. D. 359-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
February 14, 1889. Court finds claimant loyal; supplies worth $110 
taken for Army use. Tried under Bowman Act, so was necessarily 
previously presented. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

J. J. Todd. (Mrs. Sallie H. Perkins, daughter and heir.) (S. D. 
15-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court July 17, 1897. Facts reported 
by court are practically as follows: J. J. Todd died in August, 1861, 



i 



176 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

• 

leavino- his property to his minor daughter, AA'ho later became Mrs. 
Sallie H. Perkins. This girl married during minority; she married 
a Confederate soldier, who, immediatelj^ after marriage, left the 
army and devoted his attention to the care of his wife's property; the 
court states that Mrs. Perkins desired her husband to keep out of the 
Confederate service; did not desire "subjugation" of the South, but 
gave no assistance or practical sympathy to either side. It appears 
that the property was taken in 1862 and 1863, while Mrs. Perkins was 
still a minor. 

Court further reports that Army supplies worth $5,684 were taken. 
The only question is whether the claim should be paid in view of the 
finding on loyalty. It has been held that a presumption of disloyalty 
arises only from a voluntary residence in an insurrectionary State. 
It has further been held by the Supreme Court that a minor has no 
legal power to change his residence. (See Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S.. 
452.) It would thus appear that there was no presumption of dis- 
loyalty against this girl during her minorit3\ Before she became of 
age Tennessee had ceased to be seat of war under the President's 
proclamation of January 1. 1863. The committee believes that under 
these facts the claim may properly be paid. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Alpheus Truett. (H. D. 640-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 31, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies 
worth $790 taken. Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

AViLLiAM L. Vance. (George T. Vance and Guy P. Vance, ex- 
ecutors.) (S. D. 22-54-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 21, 
1892, by Senate resolution. The facts of this case are very extraor- 
dinary. As reported by the court, they are as follows : 

Robertson Topp and William L. Vance were loyal citizens, trad- 
ing under the firm name of Topp & Vance. William L. Vance was 
the surviving partner of the firm, and the present claimants, George 
T. Vance and Guy P. Vance, are his executors. 

The firm of Topp & Vance owned certain cotton, being 170 bales; 
it was taken by proper military authorities; while being held by the 
military authorities an order was issued to turn over to the agent of 
one James Nolan 600 bales of Government cotton in satisfaction of 
his claim for that quantity of cotton which had been taken. In exe- 
cution of that order the officer in charge turned over to Nolan the 170 
bales belonging to Topp & Vance. The cotton was at the time 
identified by the agent of Topp & Vance, and the transfer to Nolan 
was made against protest of their agent. 

From this it appears that the Government, practically speaking, 
used the property of this firm to pay a Government debt owed to 
another citizen. As suggested by the court, this action was entirely 
illegal, but the effect was nevertheless that of canceling an obligation 
of the Government to the extent of 170 bales of cotton, thereby 
benefiting the Government to that extent. It is also plain that it 
operated to take just that amount of property from the firm of 
Topp & Vance. 

Under these circumstances the only question requiring any ex- 
tended consideration at the hands of the committee seems to be the 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 177 

matter of title, i. e., whether the firm of Topp & Vance was the actual 
owner of the cotton. 

On that point it would not appear that the court really performed 
its full function in reporting all material facts. The court has gone 
into considerable detail in giving what may be called probative facts^ 
but omitted to state the final fact of ownership one way or the other. 

It appears that the cotton was on the farm of Mrs. Mary A. Butler, 
in Sunflower County. Miss., Avhen taken. Immediately thereafter a 
military board in Vicksburg considered the claim presented by this 
firm; the board found that Topp & Vance were the owners of the 
property, this finding being based in part on the affidavit of Mrs, 
Butler, stating she had sold the cotton to the firm, and also based in 
part on the further fact that Mrs. Butler sought to recover for herself 
only the remainder of the cotton captured on her premises. 

The court reports that there is competent evidence to show that 
Mrs. Butler, in whose possession the cotton was captured and who 
was prima facie its owner, renounced any possible claim she might 
have had, so that she could not question the title of Topp & Vance, 
It seems plain that some one owned this cotton when it was taken. 
Presumptively, being personal property, it belonged to the person in 
possession ; that was Mrs. Butler. However, she expressly stated 
that she did not own these 170 bales, but stated that she had sold this 
lot to Topp & Vance. Further, she made no claim for these 170 bales, 
but made only claim for other cotton taken from her plantation at 
the same time. Her express affidavit and her acts constituted declara- 
tions against her interest and in derogation of her prima facie title. 
The military board considering the matter in March, 18G-1, imme- 
diately after the seizure, found that the firm of Topp »& Vance owned 
the cotton. The committee does not believe that the Government 
can well deny that title at the present time in view of all these facts. 

The matter of title and taking being disposed of, the only remain- 
ing question is as to the measure of compensation. 

The court reports that similar cotton in the summer of 1864 would 
have been worth in New Orleans $51,000 for the 170 bales; that total 
expenses of transportation from Vicksburg and incident to sale would 
have been $7,139.50, so that the cotton would have brought net 
$43,860.50 at New Orleans. The court also reports that the market 
value at Vicksburg would have been about 5 per cent less than in 
New Orleans, or $41,667. It is this last-mentioned amount that it is 
joroposed to pay. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

EzEKiAii H. Walker. (H. D. 382-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent ta 
court February 4, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal ; Army supplies 
worth $300 taken. Claim filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jesse A. Wallace. (H. D. 698-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court May 19, 1906. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies 
worth $215 taken. Claim filed with Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mary E. Walters. (Florence Walters et al., heirs.) (H. D. 
966-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 31, 1908. Court 

19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 12 



178 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $490 taken. Tried under 
Bowman Act, which means -previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

A. J. WiGLESwoRTH. (W. P. Boales. administrator.) (II. D. 
56-61-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June IT. 1886. Court finds 
decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $105 taken. Claim filed with 
Commissary General. 

Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph R. Williams. (Edmund W. Williams, executor.) (S. D. 
27-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1901, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loj^al ; that United States 
forces took for Army use nuiles, wagons, and harness, near Pine 
Bluff, Ark. ; that said forces occupied decedent's real estate in Mem- 
phis; that value of personal property taken and of rental of prem- 
ises was $12.040 ; that as to certain storehouses the allowance includes 
only one-half of rental value, as decedent owned only one-half inter- 
est. No allowance is made for damages. Claim not previously pre- 
sented. From petition it appears that the occupancy began in 1862, 
and therefore claim could not have been entertained by court under 
Bowman Act, as appears from its decision in Overton Hotel case, 
hereinbefore mentioned. Southern Claims Commission had no 
jurisdiction of claims for rent, but might have considered claim for 
mules, etc. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

George T. Wilson. (H. D. 578-61-2.) Bowman Act-. Sent to 
court April 14, 1908. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies 
worth $60 taken. Claim rejected by Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William S. Wilson. (W. M. Wilson, administrator.) (H. D. 
661-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 10, 1890. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $315 taken. Claim re- 
jected by Commissary General. 

Passed House in Sixty -first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nancy Wright. (J. E. Wright, administrator.) (H. D. 662- 
61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 23, 1889. Court finds 
decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $225 taken. Claim rejected 
by Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Missionary Baptist Church. Antioch, Tenn. (S. D. 382-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied 
a brick church building, at intervals from spring of 1862 till close of 
war, as quarters; reasonable rental value, with damages in excess of 
ordinary wear and tear, was $600. This claim was rejected by 
Quartermaster General when presented in 1867. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Church of Christ, Bledsoe County, Tenn. (S. D. 130-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 



I 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 179 

Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces tore down church 
building and used materials ; building worth $520. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Baptist Church, Bolivar, Tenn. (S. D. 181-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 12, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court 
reports claimant loyal ; United States forces used church building for 
about two years as smallpox hospital, Avhen it Avas accidentally burned 
while in their possession. Rental value and value building amount 
to $3,400. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

HiAWASSE Masonic Lodge, No. 188, Calhoun, Tenn. (S. D. 
173-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906. by Senate res- 
olution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occupied 
buildings and ground; reasonable rental value, with damages in ex- 
cess of ordinarj' wear and tear, was $620. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Shiloh Presbyterian Church, Calhoun, Tenn. ( S. D. 595-60-2. ) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906. Court reports claimant 
loyal; United States forces tore down church building and used mate- 
rials in constructing quarters and bridges; building worth $825. 
Claim was made twice to Southern Claims Commission, but rejected 
for want of jurisdiction; claim referred to court August 6, 1888, 
under Bowman Act, but was dismissed ; later referred under Tucker 
Act and tried under that act. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Charleston. Tenn. (S. D. 
261-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate res- 
olution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu- 
pied church as hospital and storehouse; rental value, with damages in 
excess of ordinary w^ear and tear, was $530. Claim rejected by Quar- 
termaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Charleston, Tenn. (S. I). 
161-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu- 
pied building and grounds as commissary depot and for other pur- 
poses; rentafvalue, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 

was $960. . „ , „ • CI- i. c i. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty- hrst 

and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Chattanoooa, Tenn . ( S. 
D 141-60-1 ) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied church property from about September, 1863, till end ot 
war- rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear. 



180 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

was $1,800. Claim originallj^ presented to Quartermaster General, 
but rejected. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, Chattanooga, Tenn. 
(S. D. 91-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces 
occupied building for hospital and damaged same to extent of $3,640, 
which damages were paid through Quartermaster's Department; that 
rental value was $1,500, which is amount now allowed. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Cumberland Presbyterian CAurch, Clarksville, Tenn. (S. D. 
281-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu- 
pied church building; rental value, including repairs necessary to 
restore building to former condition, was $1,200. Claim originally 
presented to Quartermaster General and rejected ; was later presented 
to Treasury Department and rejected for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, Cleveland, Tenn. (S. D. 
194-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu- 
pied lodge building as guardhouse and for other purposes; rental 
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $940." 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Cleveland, Tenn. (S. D. 
73-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court rei)orts claimant loyal; United States forces first 
used the brick church building as a hospital and later as a grain 
depot; thereafter the bricks of the building were removed and used 
by troops in camp; building worth $3,000. Claim presented to 
Quartermaster General, but rejected in 1866. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Clifton, Tenn. (S. D. 
272-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occu- 
pied church building for military purposes; rental value, with re- 
pairs rendered necessary by said occupanc}', was $980. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses, 

St. Peter's Protestant Episcopal Church, Columbia, Tenn. 
(H. D. 636-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 6, 1906, by 
House resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; that United States 
forces occupied churcli property as hospital and for barracks; use 
and occupation, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, 
was $3,120. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 181 

Boiling Fork Baptist Chirch, Coavan, Tenn. (S. D. 138-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court Juno 13, IDOG, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports clainumt loyal; United States forces tore clown its 
building and used the bricks for building chimneys and ovens; the 
bricks so used were worth $1,310. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixtieth and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mill Creek Baptist Church, Davidsox Couxty, Texx. (S. D. 
176-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that church was occu- 
pied for commissary and other purposes about 31 months: that 
rental, with incidental damages, was worth $1,650. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
und Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hexxegar's Chapel. Methodist Episcopal Church South, Dun- 
lap. Texn. (S. D. 399-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 
1906. by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United 
States forces tore down church building and used materials in con- 
structing quarters; building worth $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Christian Church. Franklin. Tenn. (S. D. 264-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal; United States forces occupied building for 
hospital and other purposes; rental value, with damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was $620. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
find Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hira:m Lodge, No. 7, Free and Accepted Masons, Franklin, 
Tenn. (S. D. 139-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 
1904. by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal : United 
States forces occupied lodge building for military purposes: rental 
value, with repairs rendered necessary by occupation, was $2,120. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 
36-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: church property occupied 
about two years for hospital and barracks: rental value, with dam- 
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, Avas $875. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
tind Sixty-second Congresses. 

Missionary Baptist Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 12-61- 
1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal: United States forces occupied church 
building for hospital and other purposes: rental, with damages in 
excess of ordinarv wear and tear, was $660. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 40-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 



182 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Court reports claimant loyal ; church buildins; used for hospital pur- 
poses; rental, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was 
$800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Clifton Lodge, No. 173, Free and Accepted Masons. (S. D. 53- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied 
lodge building for hospital and commissary depot for about eight 
months, and when they abandoned the building they destroyed it. 
Reasonable rental, with damage caused, Avas $1,500. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Harpetii Academy, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 481-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal ; while United States forces were occupying 
building as barracks it w as burned ; evidence does not show origin 
of fire; reasonable value of building was $4,500. The burning seems 
to have been what may be called an accident incidental to its occu- 
pancy, and it is believed that under these conditions the Government 
should compensate the owner. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Franklin, Tenn. (S. D. 4^58-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 12, 1902, by Senate resolution. 
Court re])orts that last official act of w^ardens and vestrymen ])rior to- 
war was in 1859, apparently no official action having been taken dur- 
ing war. United States forces occupied church building; occupa- 
tion, with repairs rendered necessary thereby, was w^orth $2,450. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Howard Lodge No. 13, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Gal- 
latin, Tenn. (S. D. 239--60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 
27, 1904, by vSenate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United 
States forces occupied lodge building for hospital ; rental value, with 
damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, w^as $2,300. Claim first 
sent to court by House under Bowman Act, March 1, 1889. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Germantown Baptist Church, Shelby Coltnty, Tenn. (S. D. 
275-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal: United States forces oc- 
cupied church building as hospital and later tore it down and used 
materials therefrom; building worth $1,250. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Germantown, Tenn. 
(S. D. 322-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States 
forces occupied church building and later tore it doAvn and used ma- 
terials for military purposes. Rental value, with value of materials,, 
was $1,350. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 183 

Humboldt Female College. (G. S. Lannom, receiver.) (S. D. 
118-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901. by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces 
occupied college buildings for a hospital, and that buildings were 
burned. The findings not being explicit the committee examined the 
papers in this case for purpose of supplementing the findings. The 
testimony shows that the main building was being used as a hospital 
by the Army; that some smallpox patients had been treated therein; 
that the building was being disinfected by burning sulphur in open 
pans upon the floor, and while this was being done the building 
caught fire and was totally destroyed. Under these circumstances it 
is believed the claimant should be recompensed. 

Claim apparently presented as early as January, 1892, as subject 
matter of H. R. 1920 (o2d. Cong.), but was never sent to court till 
1904, or 12 years later. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Lynn Creek Baptist Church, Tenn. (S. D. 237-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal; United States forces tore down building and 
used materials in erection of quarters; building worth $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses 
and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Unity Church, Giles County. Tenn. (H. D. 709-62-2.). 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 18, 1910, by House resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops by proper authority took church 
building and used materials thereof for building shelters; building 
worth $350. Court reports claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Baptist Church, Grand Junction, Tenn. (S. D. 137-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court August 7, 1890, under Bowman Act; that 
reference conferring no jurisdiction claim against sent to court 
March 3, 1905. under Tucker Act by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal; that about November, 1862. United States 
forces took possession of building; later building torn down and 
materials used for Army purposes; building worth $980. Claim pre- 
sented by petition to Congress in 1874 and referred to court August 
7, 1890, under Bowman Act. which reference failed to confer juris- 
diction on court. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Mor>^TATx Creek Baptist Church, Tenn. (S. D. 287-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1906. by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal. On property the findings are not ex- 
plicit, and it becomes necessary to refer to the allegations in the 
petition in order to arrive at the facts. This means that the commit- 
tee is compelled to do what the court should have done. It appears 
that the United States forces took possession of the church building 
apparently for a military prison and that later the building was 
torn down and materials used for building quarters. The court 
reports that the reasonable compensation for the use of the building 



184 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

and its (le.struction was $500. I'luler these circumstances it is be- 
lieved that i)aynient should be ipade for the building. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixt^y-seeond and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church, Jeffersox City. Tenn. (H. D. •225-r)8-3.) 
Bowman Act, Sent to court January 12. 1904. Court reports claiin- 
:ant lo^'al ; that United States forces " took " and destroyed the 
•church building, worth $015. This i.s another illustration of an im- 
properly drawn finding. The fact that the term " took " is used by 
the court indicates, though does not state, that the materials were 
taken for military purposes. With that understanding of the find- 
ings the claim is included in the bill. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Lagrange Synodical College. (S. D. •2?)4-()-2-2.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court ]\[arch 3, 1003, by Senate resolution. Court reports the 
claimant loyal : that United States forces occupied the college build- 
ing for hospital purposes and damaged same: they later tore dow^n 
the building and used material therefrom in constructing winter 
quarters. Reasonable rental value, with damages in excess of or- 
dinary wear and tear, and value of building when torn down was 
$18,000. Court reports its conclusion that claim is an equitable one 
in that the Government received the benefit of the use of the prop- 
erty. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

CHrRc:H or Christ, La Vergne, Tenn. (S. D. 40-GO-l.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 15, 1006, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal; United States forces tore down church build- 
ing and used materials in constructing commissary storehouses and 
quarters building, worth $2,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

ClT-MltERLAND UNIVERSITY, LeUANON. TeNN. (S. D. 288-50-1.) 

Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1003, by Senate resolution. 
Court re]wrts claimant loyal; United States forces occupied uni- 
versity buildings and grounds for military purposes; rental value, 
with damages solely incident to such occupancy, was $8,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtv-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Loudoun, Tenn. (S. D. 179-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports claimant loyal; United States forces tore dowm church building 
and used materials in construction of quarters, after having used the 
building; occupation and materials reasonably worth $1,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church. Lynnville, Tenn. (S. D. 37-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; that the present organization is the suc- 
cessor of the Presbyterian Church of Old Lynnville and of the Pres- 



CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 185 

byterian Church of Hopewell, present church being formed by union 
of the other two. United States forces removed the church building 
of the Presbyterian Church of Hopewell, appropriating materials 
therefrom in building quarters ; also occupied the church building of 
the Presbyterian Church of Old Lynnville for about six months, and 
thereafter destroyed the church by fire. Reasonable compensation 
for use of said building and destruction of both buildings mentioned 
is $3,300. The committee is inclined to take the view that after 
having been used as a hospital the presumption is that if the build- 
ing was burned it was done as a sanitary measure, so that the de- 
struction of the building may be deemed' reasonably an incident to 
the occupation. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Grand Lodge, Independent Order or Odd Fellows, Tennessee. 
(S. D. 238-00-1. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907. by Senate 
resolution. Court reports that Grand Lodge, Independent Order of 
Odd FelloAvs, is the successor to the Odd Fellows Lodge at Lynnville 
which was loj^al; United States forces took possession of building 
owned jointly by Odd Fellows Lodge of Lynnville and by the Pres- 
byterian Church of that place and occupied it for hospital about six 
months; thereafter the military forces, under orders, set fire to a 
number of buildings in the town, among which was this one. the Odd 
Fellows Lodge owning one-third interest, the court reporting that 
resonable compensation for use and destruction would be $700 for 
that one-third interest. 

Eeverting to the statement of case, it would appear that the build- 
ing was used as a smallpox hospital from September. 1863. till March, 
1864,- that a smallpox flag was kept on the building until fall of 1864, 
when the building was destroyed. AYith this explanation it would 
appear that the building was burned as a precaution to prevent the 
spread of smallpox ; therefore the destruction was an incident follow- 
ing its use as a smallpox hospital, and the claim should be paid. The 
rental value can not be separated from the value of the building on 
these findings. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church or Me:siphis, Tenn. (S. D. 224-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court originally on March 2, 1891. under Bow- 
man Act; some testimony taken under that reference, but court was 
without jurisdiction under that act. occupation in question having 
commenced prior to January 1, 1863; claim referred under Tucker 
Act, March 3, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant 
loyal; that United States forces occupied church building about 12 
months; rental value $1,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Union University, Murfreesboro. Tenn. (S. T>. 150-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court Ai^ril 28. 1904. by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces used uniA^ersity 
building for hospital: rental value, including necessary repairs in- 
cident to occupation, was $5,474. 



186 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Court also reports that at time occupation besian there was a 
library in said buildinir, belonoinir to the university, reasonably 
worth $6,500: also philosophical and chemical apparatus, worth 
$1,750; that during occupation $500 worth of the books disappeared; 
that about the time the buildings were being vacated by the military 
forces the contents of the buildings, embracing books worth $6,000 
and apparatus worth $1,750. Avere depredated upon and taken away 
by an Iowa Cavalry regiment, the furniture being also taken by that 
regiment. The furniture taken away is included in the finding of 
$5,474. The court reports that it is not satisfactorily established 
what disposition was made of the $6,000 worth of books or of the 
apparatus worth $1,750, their taking being a matter of depredation. 

The only question in this case is whether or not full compensation 
ought to be made by the Government not only for use and occupation 
and incidental damages, but also for the theft of the university 
library and scientific apparatus. However, as the claim has been 
previously passed in the sum of only $5,474, thus covering only 
occupation and incidental damages, the committee has resolved its 
doubts in this instance in favor of the Government, and has reported 
the claim in that amount only. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Presbyterian Church, Nashville, Tenn. (S. D. 562- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church building 
from October. 1863. to April. 1865; the Government paid this claim- 
ant rent up to April 30, 1864. and also paid for damages inflicted 
upon building. Rent from April 30. 1864. to April 27. 1865. was not 
paid, this amounting to $1,200. Court reports claim equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

University of Nashville, Tenn. (S. D. 339-60-1.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal: that from February 12, 1862, to September 11, 1865, 
United States forces occupied claimant's buildings and grounds; 
that reasonable rental, with damages occasioned bj^ its occupation, 
in addition to ordinary wear and tear, was $7,300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mount Olivet Methodist Episcopal Church South, Nolensvit-le, 
Tenn. (S. D. 9-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States 
forces occupied church building: rental value, with damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was $390, 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Prumitfve Baptist Church, Pelham, Tenn. (S. D. 110-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces tore down 
church buildinfif and used material therefrom in erection of quarters; 
building worth $200. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 



claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 187 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Prospect, Tenn. (S. D. 
22-59-1.) ^ Tucker Act. Sent to ccurt April 27, 1904, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant lo3^al ; that United States forces, by 
proper authority, tore do^Yn church building and appropriated the 
materials to Army use ; building worth $900. 

Passed Senate m Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second Congresses. 

CuMBEKLA^D Presbyterian Church, Pulaski, Tenn. (H. D. 
7r)l-r)9-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; that from November, 1863. 
till summer of 186-4 United States "forces used church building for 
military purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, was $700, 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Saulsbury, Tenn. (S. D. 229- 
58-2.) Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loA^al; court finds that church building was used by 
United States forces as quarters for one year; that rental value was 
$240 for this period. Later a Federal regiment burned the church 
building, though it does not appear whether it was done by orders; 
church building M'orth $2,200. Heretofore this claim has been re- 
garded as a proper one for payment as to the rental of $240, but not 
as to the value of the church building in the sum of $2,200. As to 
the rental item this claim was included in the claims appropriation 
act approved February 24, 1905 (33 Stats., 769). This church ex- 
pressly declined to receive the sum of $240 in satisfaction of its claim, 
evidently thinking that acceptance of that sum would preclude any 
further consideration of the other item. 

As to the item of rent, this claim has passed the Senate in the Sixty- 
first Congress and the House in the Sixty-first and Sixty-second Con- 
gresses. 

McDaniel's Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, Shell- 
mound, Tenn. (S. D. 357-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
IMarch 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal : that 
United States forces tore down church building and used materials in 
constructing bunks and horse sheds ; building worth $520. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Smyrna, Tenn. (S. D. 175-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces tore down 
church building and used" materials for building winter quarters, etc. ; 
church building worth $1,250. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second Congresses. ra t^ oa 

Presbyterian Church, Strawberry Plains, Tenn. (S. I). .)4- 
59-1 ) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolu- 
tion Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces removed 
its church building, using materials therefrom; building worth $1,600. 
Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second Congresses 
and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Triune. Tenn. (H. D. 
714-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House 



188 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 



resolution, ('ourt finds claimant loyal; United States forces occu- 
pied building and camped around it ; during such occupation the 
building was burned, the evidence not showing Avhether by accident 
f>r otherwise. After the fire the bricks and stone used in construction 
of building Avere appropriated to military use ; the building was worth 
$3,800. These facts seem to be such as to remove the claim from 
what may be termed the class of claims for destruction of church 
property. It would appear that the destruction was an incident or 
result of the occupation. It appears from the statement of case that 
the church was a large brick building and the court expressly reports 
that after the fire the bricks were used by the military forces. On 
these facts the claim is included in the bill. ' 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

Baptist Church, Tullahoma, Tenx. (S. D. 2.V5.S-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; that United States forces tore down church building 
and used material thereof; building worth $1,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second CongTesses. 

Christian Church, Union City, Tenn. (S. D. 262-CO-l.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied church 
building and then tore it down and used material in erection of bar- 
racks, etc. ; value of building, with rental, $850. Claim first pre- 
sented to Quartermaster General and rejected for lack of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second Congresses. 

Washington College, Washington. Tenn. (H. D. G35-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 20, 1903, by House resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; that United States forces occupied 
premises for military purposes; rental value, with simi necessary to 
restore property to its former condition, was $4,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Wavekly, Tenn. (S. D. 
159-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 190G, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; that United States forces occu- 
pied property as quarters, etc. ; rental value, Avith damages in ex- 
cess of ordinary wear and tear, $1,040. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Eudora Baptist Church, White Station, Tenn. (S. D. 97-61-1.) 
Tticker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal. This church owned two buildings, one a new 
])uilding, used by the white congregation, the other an older build- 
ing, then used by the colored congregation. United States forces 
occupied the new church building about a year and a half for hospital 
and other purposes and greatly damaged same. They completely 
tore doAvn the old church building and used materials therefrom. 
Kental value of the new building so occupied, with damages in ex- 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN" AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 189 

cess of ordinary wear and tear, and the value of the old building 
torn down, aggregate $1,295. Claim presented to Quartermaster 
General in 1865; referred to court in 1887 under Bowman Act, and 
later referred under Tucker Act. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second CongTesses. 

Mount Zion Cpiurch, Wil'liamson County, Tenn. (S. D. 48- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal ; that United States forces occupied 
church property and used some of the material from the building in 
construction of quarters for troops ; said use and occupation and ma- 
terial were reasonably worth $1,300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-second Congresses. 

TEXAS. 

Mrs. Gertrude O'Bannon. (S. D. 223-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
(formerly Miss Gertrude Whitley) loyal because of her tender years 
during war; also that Army supplies worth $1,350 were taken from 
her. Court further says she was an infant of tender years at time 
her property was taken, though of age during existence of Claims 
Commission. Her petition alleges she was born in 1850, which would 
show she attained majority about the time the commission was estab- 
lished. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Mary A. Shaav. (S. D. 221-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
Jime 27, 1902, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: 
that United States forces took possession of her dwelling in Corpus 
Christi, Tex., and tore it down and used the materials, worth $700. 
Also that claim was not presented save to Congress; that '' claimant 
is a woman of very limited education, not possessing sufficient knowl- 
edge of business to conduct a correspondence to protect her inter- 
ests "; that she placed her claim in the hands of her Congressman in 
1894. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-fir.st 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Egbert M. Williams. (Kobert E. Williams et al., heirs.) (H. D. 
535_G0-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1900, by House 
resolution. Court finds that decedent was loyal; that Army sup- 
plies worth $1,140 were taken from him in Missouri. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

VERMONT, 

John J, Dale, (Henrietta V. Dale, widow,) (H, D, 569-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Officer's claim for difference in pay, $124.06. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



190 CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

VlR(;iNIA. 

Alfred Anderson. (Thomas R. Hardawav, administrator.) (H. 
D. 1472-0)0-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 16. 1887. 
Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $783 were 
taken. Claim presented to Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mary Anderson. (Edward Anderson, administrator.) (S. D. 
83-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 4, 1903, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court reports that decedent lived in Maryland during war 
and was loyal : the other facts are somewhat complicated, being prac- 
tically as follows: 

Col. George Minor was owner of a farm in Virginia, about 5 miles 
from AVashington City, on which were 300 acres of timbered land. 
In fall of 1861 United States forces took possession of the farm and 
occupied it the remainder of the war. 

June 1, 1862, Col. Minor died, devising all this property to his 
daughter, Mary Anderson. Some timber was cut by the troops from 
the land during lifetime of Col. Minor. He has been found not loyal, 
and for that reason the court has made no allowance for any timber 
taken during his lifetime nor for any damages done the place by its 
occupancy by the troops. 

The court further reports that " after Mrs. Anderson became owner 
of the premises " timber worth $7,150 was taken, and that damages 
done the place by said occupancy after death of Col. Minor amounted 
to $700, thus making a total of $7,850. 

The court further reports that the claim was presented to the 
Quartermaster General, but was not acted upon by him, evidently 
because claim arose in Virginia, and he had no jurisdiction of the 
claim. She did not file it with Claims Commission. It is more than 
doubtful whether that commission had jurisdiction, however. The 
court reports, however, that owing to litigation as to validity of her 
father's will it was not until 1875 that the validity of the will Avas 
established ; it was then too late to file with the commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Hannah T. Crom- 
well. (S. D. 420-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1903, 
by Senate resolution. Court reports that these three claimants were 
negroes and minors and were loyal during the war. Hannah T. 
Cromwell is evidently deceased, her estate being represented by ad- 
ministrators, apparently. Court further reports that United States 
forces occupied claimants' premises in York County, Va., about two 
years, that place not being seat of w^ar at the time; that rental value 
was $1,500. 

Also that the troops took for Army use timber from claimants' 
land worth $16,975, making a total of $18,475 for rent and timber. 

The court also finds that the claim for rent was filed with Claims 
Commission and was found not to be within its jurisdiction; that as 
early as 1888 the claim was placed in hands of an attorney in Rich- 
mond. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 191 

In view of the wording of the court's findings, it is believed appro- 
priation should be made as follows: 

To Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and tbe estate of Hannali T. Crom- 
well, late of York County, in equal shares. $18,475. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

John H. Baker. (S. D. 217-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
June 27, 1902, by Senate resolution. The facts reported are these : 

Baker is found loyal. During the war the Twenty-eighth New 
York Infantry, under command of Col. Dudley Donnelly, took to- 
bacco worth $790 from Baker. Baker filed his claim with the Claims 
Commission, which found him loyal and allowed him for certain other 
items of supplies taken, but rejected the item of tobacco. 

It has been suggested previously that the court does not expressly 
report that the property was taken by proper authority or that it 
was used by the troops. Technically this is correct, but the commit- 
tee deems the finding practically equivalent to saying the property 
was taken by orders of the commanding officer, and from the nature 
of the property it would naturally be used by the troops. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Robert N. Blake. (G. B. Wallace, administrator.) (S. D. 198- 
59-2.) Tucker act. Sent to court April 26, 1901, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $1,790 
were taken; that claim was not filed with Claims Commission, but 
presented to Congress as early as Fiftieth Congress, which means 
between March 1, 1887, and March 4, 1889, or immediately after pas- 
sage of the Tucker Act. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Mary S. Armistead, Anna Gee, and Sue P. Temple (children 
of Theodoric Bland.) (H. D. 429-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
February 15, 1899, l3y House resolution. The facts are not stated 
as explicitly as they should have been in the findings of the court, 
but examining the findings with the statement of the case the facts 
appear to be as follows : 

Army supplies were taken from five owners, i. e., Theodoric Bland, 
jr.. Sailie Russell Bland, Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. 
Bland. Theodoric Bland jr.," and Sailie Russell Bland are found 
not loyal, but the other three owners are found loyal. It would 
appear that Mary S. Bland is now Mary S. Armistead; that Anna 
Bland is now Anna Gee; and that Sue P. Bland is now Sue P. 
Temple. 

The court finds that the value of the supplies taken by proper 
authority from the five owners was $6,000, the interest of each being 
one-fifth, or $1,200; that the interests of the three owners found loyal 
aggregate $3,600. 

It is believed that appropriation should be made as follows : 

To Mary S Armistead, Anna Gee, and Sue P. Temple, of Prince George 
County, children of Theodoric Bland, deceased, in equal shares, in their own 
right, three thousand six hundred dollars. 



192 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

# 

An appropriation in this lanjruaire will show plainly the intent 
of Congress that the sum appropriated shall be paid to the three 
owners who were found loyal. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Lemikl J. BowDEN. (Rosa M. Bowden. Zenobia Porter, Mary^ E. 
Bowden, and Mary Bowden Gustin, heirs.) (S. D. 63-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 3, 190.5. by Senate resolution. It is noted 
that the finding of decedent's loyalty Avas filed in Case No. 11131, in 
the Court of Claims, while the findings on property were filed in 
Case No. 11884. Reference to Senate Document 26 (58th Cong., 3d 
sess.) in connection with the present case explains this fact. It 
appears that by Senate resolution of March 2, 1903. a claim of the 
heirs of Lemuel Bowden was sent to the court. A favorable report 
was made by tlie court in 1904 on loyalty and on the items of ordi- 
nary supplies, but the court held that it could make no allowance 
for\iso and occupation of real estate because the bill referred did not 
cover that item of claim. In that case the sum of $4,845 was allowed 
for supplies taken. That sum was paid in the claims appropriation 
act of February 24, 1905 (33 Stat., 774). 

In order to confer jurisdiction on the court to consider the rent 
claim another bill was introduced and sent to the court by Senate 
resolution of March 3, 1905. Under this later reference the court 
reports decedent loyal and that United States forces occupied de- 
cedent's premises and that rental value, with damages incident to the 
occupany, is $3,540. This forms the present claim. 

This rent claim could not have been presented to any officer or tri- 
bunal having jurisdiction. The claim for Army supplies might have 
been filed with the Claims Commission, but that Avas paid in 1905. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Francis M. Brabham. (H. D. 695-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent 
to court March 14, 1902. Court reports claimant loyal; that Army 
supplies worth $500 were taken from him for Army use. Claim 
found on j^age 30 of index of Southern Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Solomon P. Brockway. (H. D. 281-60-1.) Bowman Act. Offi- 
cer's claim for difference in pay. $92.64. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Heirs of John B. Brown. (Harriet A. Mills, Addison M. Brown, 
Willis A. Law, and Maye C. Law. heirs.) (S. D. 359-61-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court re- 
ports decedent loyal ; that real estate belonging to decedent was occu- 
pied for military purposes ; that rental value, with damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, was $800. 

The court further fixes the shares of the various parties interested 
as follows : 

Harriet A. Mills. $355.55; Addison M. Brown, $88.89; Willis A. 
Law, $177.78 ; Maye C. Law, $177.78. 



1 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 193 

A claiiii was presented to the Claims Commission. \n\t did not cover 
rent or damages, evidently for the reason sug^rested in the finding of 
the court, that there was no jurisdiction to entertain such items of the 
claim. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

William BuRLEY. (Mariah McDermott. administratrix.) (H. D. 
3Gl-()-J-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 29. IDOC). Court 
finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies Avorth $470 were taken by 
proper authority. Claim is found on page o& of index of Southern 
Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Caroline Carter. (S. D. ()T-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 21, 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finds ciuimant loyal; 
Army supplies worth $375 taken. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Francis F. Curtis. (H. 1). 707-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 2, 1891. Court finds claimant hyal : that supplies worth 
$603.75 were taken for Army use. Claim appears on page 61 of 
Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John C. Davis. (Alice E. Davis, sole heir.) (H. D. 202-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court P^ebruary 12, 1895. Court finds de- 
cedent loyal. The facts as to property are different from those found 
in any other case. 

As reported by the court they are as follows : 

John C. Davis during the war held a deed of trust on certain 
land. United States troops took for Army use timber, buildings, 
and fences from the premises, all of the value of $875. Later, Davis 
sold the place and realized enough from the sale to pay off a prior 
deed of trust, and had left the sum of $362 to apply on his own deed 
of trust. That left a deficiency of $934.27 on his deed of trust. 
Hence, Davis lost that much. The taking of timber, buildings, and 
fences by the troops was an injury to the estate, and under the 
peculiar facts the loss arising from their being taken fell on Davis, 
the holder of this second deed of trust. 

The Government evidently owes some one for the sui)plies so taken. 
It would appear that in equity the compensation should be paid to 
the heir of Davis, the man Avho suffered the loss. Of course, the 
compensation can cover only the value of the supplies taken, i. e., 
$875, and even this payment will still leave Davis a loser. 

While the case is linusual it clearly possesses merit. The claim 
was presented to the Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Edward W. Donnelly. (Margaret M. Donnelly. Avidow.) (H. D. 
385-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 1. 1902. Court finds 
decedent loval; that Army supplies worth $360 were taken. Claim 
found on page 69 of Claims Connnission index. Was originally re- 
jected on gi'ound decedent was not a citizen. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Ct)ngresses. 

19S5.5— H. Rept. 97, 63-2 13 



194 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Lewis Ellison. (Lewis Ellison and Helen Louise Crafford, 
heirs.) S. D. '249-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate reso- 
lution in Fifty-seventh Congress. Court finds decedent loyal; that 
Army supplies worth S5,120 were taken: that claim was not pre- 
sented save by petition to Congress; that decedent was declared a 
bankrupt in 1869. As shown by the reports of the Claims Commis- 
sion, bankruptc}' of a claimant was deemed by the commission an 
insurmountable obstacle to allowance of a claim. Therefore the 
commission would not have allowed the claim had it been filed 
with it. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Robert Embeey. (Hezekiah T. Embrev. administrator.) (H. D. 
19T-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 14. 1902. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $826 were taken. Claim 
found on page 76 of index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Henry Fitzhugh. (Samuel Fitzhugh. administrator.) (S. D. 
116-59-2.) Tucker Act. vSent to court first under Bowman Act and 
favorably reported by the court on loyalty and property, except that 
the court stated that no allowance was made on items of tobacco and 
rent and damages. To confer jurisdiction of those items, claim was 
sent to court under Tucker Act by Senate resolution April 26, 1904. 
Under this reference court finds decedent loyal; on property the 
court reports as follows : 

On item of rent and damages, that the premises of decedent M^ere 
used by United States forces for hospital and camping purposes and 
damaged by tearing down buildings, etc., the rental and incidental 
damages amounting to $1,800. 

On item of tobacco, the finding is that while their officers were 
present the troops took for their use tobacco reasonably worth $1,500 ; 
some of the tobacco was taken awa}'^ in wagons. 

The only question in this case seems to be as to whether compensa- 
tion ought to be made for the tobacco, there being no question as to 
the other item of rent and incidental damages. The tobacco must 
have been taken either under the orders or with the assent of the 
officers commanding the troops, as the officers were ])resent at the 
taking. There would seem to be, therefore, some authority for the 
taking. The property was used by the troops, and under the condi- 
tions stated by the court it has seemed only fair that payment be 
made covering both items of the claim. 

In the Sixtieth Congi"ess the item of rent passed the Senate; 
passed House as to both items in Sixty-second Congress. 

John Flower. (Margaret E. Shipley, administratrix.) (S. D. 
216-57-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 11, 1900, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal: that Army supplies worth 
$3,510 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Noah Foltz. (H. D. 149-58-3.) Bowman Act.* Sent to court 
February 26, 1892. Court finds claimant loyal; that Army supplies 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS; ETC. 195 

worth $300 were taken from him. CLiim appears on page 82 of 
Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Nathaniel Fox. (Richard Fox, heir.) (H. D. 168-55-3.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court January 28, 1896. This is an unusual claim, 
arising from the War of the Revolution. The findings are numerous 
and the facts complicated. Stated as briefly as possible the facts 
are as follows : 

Nathaniel Fox was a captain in Virginia Continental troops; he 
was severely wounded at Brandywine ; being unfit for service on ac- 
count of his wounds, he tendered his resignation, which was refused 
by Gen. George Washington, who gave him permission to '• retire 
till called for." In 1T78 Capt. Fox was left out of active service on 
account of wounds received. Thereby he became what was then 
called a " supernumerary officer,'' entitled, under resolutions of the 
Continental Congress and statutes of Virginia, to half pav for life 
if he remained such till end of the war. 

At close of the Revolution Capt. Fox presented his claim for half 
pay to the State auditor of Virginia, and the claim was rejected. He 
then sued in the Richmond district court and secured a decree that 
he receive five years' full pay in lieu of half pay, with interest at 6 
per cent from April 22, 1783. That decree was never satisfied, save 
in part, however. In part settlement, however, the State of Vir- 
ginia paid Capt. Fox interest on $2,400 (five years' pay of a captain) 
from April 22, 1783, to July 1, 1796, and issued to him a certificate 
stating the $2,400 to be still "due to him. 

It may be asked where the liability of the United States arises 
under these facts. It is under the third section of an act of July 5, 
1832 (4 Stats., 563), quoted in the report of the Court of Claims in 
this case, that section reading as follows: 

Sec. 3. Arid he it further enacted. That the Secretiiiy of the Treasury be, 
and he is hereby, rlirectetl and required to adjust and settle those claims for 
half pay of the officers of the aforesaid regiments and corps which have not 
been paid or prosecuted to judgments against the State of Virginia and for 
which said State would be bound on the principles of the half-pay cases 
already decided in the supreme court of appeals of said State; which several 
sums of money, herein directed to be settled or paid, shall be paid out of any 
money in the Ti-easury not otherwise appropriated by law. 

As expressly reported by the Court of Claims, this claim was one 
of the cases or claims referred to in the statute quoted. For that 
reason this statute recognized a liability of the United States to pay 
this claim. 

As this claim was not presented to the Treasury Department when 
it might have been presented. July 5, 1832, when the statute was 
approved, the Court of Claims has allowed to the claimant only the 
$2,400 principal, and interest from July 1, 1796, to July 5, 1832, 
making a total sum of $5,185. As above stated, interest for the 
previous period was paid by Virginia. 

It seems plain that the Government owes some one this sum men- 
tioned. The only further question is as to the payee. 

From the facts reported it appears that the will of Capt. Fox and 
the record of probate thereof have been destroyed. The present 
claimant is Richard Fox. or rather his heirs or representatives. 
Richard Fox was a son of Capt. Fox by second marriage. Grand- 



196 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 



children b}^ Capt. Fox's first marriage have testified in tliis case to 
the effect that no cUiim is made by descendants by the first marriage. 

Tlie court reports continuous claim to have been made by the 
t-.econd wife during her widowhood, and by said Richard Fox, her 
son, as sole owners of the claim under the will of Capt. Fox. 

Under all these circumstances, the committee has concluded to 
follow the action of the Committee on War Claims in the Sixty- 
second Congress, to recommend an appropriation in the name of 
llichard Fox as heir of Capt. Nathaniel Fox in the sum of $5,185. 
It appears that Richard Fox is now dead, but the appropriation 
made to him will be available to his legal representatives. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Joseph E. Funkhouser. (Newton E. and Charles E. Funkhouser, 
executors.) (S. D. 565-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 
1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; that Army 
supplies worth $1,514 were taken; claim first presented to Fifty- 
seventh Congress. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mary A. Gough. (T. F. Gough. administrator.) (S. D. 
643-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $703 
taken. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Isaac Haynes. (J. R. Allison, administrator.) (S. D. 356-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $1,720 taken; claim 
rejected by Southern Claims Commission; previously sent to court 
under Bowman Act. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Mary Lutholtz. (John C. Lutholtz, sole heir.) (H. D. 440-59-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court March 31, 1902. (jourt finds decedent 
loyal; Army supplies worth $359 taken. Claim appears page 148 
index of Claims (Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John McKu^fimy. (William F. McKimmy, administrator.) (S. D. 
31-61-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 29, 1908, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $1,240 
taken. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Henry McWilliams. (Eleanor McWilliams, administratrix.) 
(H. D. 236-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 1, 1888. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $575 taken. Claim found 
on page 155, index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Lewis W. Mann. (R. G. Johnson, administrator.) (S. D. 433- 
61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Findings are entitled John S. Mann et al., but interest of John 
S. Mann need not be considered, nothing being reported in his favor. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 197 

As to Lewis AV. Mann, court reports decedent loyal; that Array sup- 
plies worth $500 were taken from him. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Samuel Marsh. (Robert M. Wilkinson, administrator.) (S. D. 
153-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 26, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $830 
taken. From statement of case it would seem this man w^as given an 
official receipt for the property taken. Claim not presented to 
Claims Commission; first presented to Fiftieth Congress, also to 
Fifty-first, Fifty-second, Fifty-third, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. 
Was sent to court first under Bowman Act at an early date, but it 
was held by court in 1888 that it had no jurisdiction under Bowman 
Act. Has been pending about 25 years. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Bland Massie. (H. D. 64-63-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by 
House resolution February 3, 1911. Court finds claimant loyal, and 
that Army supplies worth $1,900 were taken for Army use. Claim 
not presented to Southern Claims Commission because claimant was 
a minor during time allowed for such presentation. Court reports 
the claim is an equitable one. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in prior bills. 

Alexander Myers. (John B. Myers, administrator.) (H. D. 201- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 6, 1906, by House resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; that troops occupied decedent's 
real estate and took supplies; rental value with damages in excess 
of ordinary wear and tear, and value of supplies taken aggregate 
$2,682. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth and Sixty-second 
Congresses. 

Elijah P. Myers. (H. D. 247-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court February 28, 1887. Court finds claimant loyal ; Army supplies 
taken worth $1,190. Claim appears on page 172 of Claims Commis- 
sion index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John S. Pendleton. (P. L. Williams, administrator.) (H. D. 
226-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court December 9, 1896. Court 
finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies taken worth $6,120. Claim ap- 
pears on page 184 of Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alexander Poland. (George W. Z. Black, administrator.) (S. D. 
450-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908. by Senate 
resolution. Court reports decedent loyal ; Army supplies taken worth 
$4,200. Claim first presented to Congress as early as 1874; first sent 
to 'court under Bowman Act. but that conferred no jurisdiction, 
claim not having been filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixtv-second Congress. 



198 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Samuel K. Proctor. (Margaret A. Proctor, administratrix.) 
(II. D. 455-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court May 19, 1896. 
Court finds decedent loj^al ; Army supplies taken worth $520. Claim 
found on page 191, index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Poland. (William H. Poland, administrator.) (S. D. 152- 
58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March, 1903, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies taken, worth 
$2,017. Claim not previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Eliza J. Ricketts. (John W. Kellar. administrator.) (H. D. 
629-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 14, 1906. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies taken, worth $645. Claim ap- 
pears on page 198 of index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty -first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph W. Roberson. (Joseph Roberson, administrator.) (H. D. 
956-60-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12, 1907. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies Avorth $420 taken. Claim ap- 
pears on page 200 of index of Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Fei,ix Richards. (Amelia A. H. Richards, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 150-56-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 11, 1900, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports decedent loyal; that Army sup- 
plies were taken, worth $5,300; claim not filed with Claims Com- 
mission. The principal items of the claim are timber and fencing 
and four years' rent of land. While no allowance is made for rent, 
it would seem that timber and fences were taken while land was 
being occupied by troops. If so, then the Claims Commission 
would probably have rejected these items, at least, as it did in case of 
Thomas Fahey, considered as a District of Columbia claim in this 
report. The commission rejected that claim apparently because 
troops were occupying the land from which buildings were removed. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Lewis A. Sherwood. (Joshua Sherwood, heir.) (S. D. 33-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to cojirt April 26. 1904. by Senate resolution. 
Had been previously sent under Bowman Act. Court reports de- 
cedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $400 were taken. Claim not 
filed witii Claims Commission, so Bowman Act reference gave the 
court no jurisdiction. From statement of case it would appear 
claim was presented to Congress as early as 1877. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Sarah G. Smith. (Sarah Lou Smith et al., heirs.) (S. D. 122- 
59_1.) Sent to court April, 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
decedent loyal; that Army supplies worth $2,7()2 were taken from 
her; that Sarah Lou Smith. Mary Ellen Smith, and Susan Virginia 
Smith are only heirs. Claim not filed with Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Ctmgress. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 199 

James G. Taliaferro. (William H. Taliaferro, administrator.) 
(S. p. 69-57-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court Februaiy 13, 1901, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; that Army sup- 
plies worth $8,910 were taken for Army use. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

John R. Taylor and Charles F. Taylor. (S. D. 105-57-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 11, 1900, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports these two claimants loyal. The claim is for timber 
taken from land in which their mother had a life interest as to one- 
third. The remainder^ subject to her life estate, was vested in these 
two claimants and their brother. That brother's interest is not con- 
sidered as he was not held loyal. The interest of these two claimants 
in the timber taken is found to be $4,323, the taking being for Army 
use. 

The cutting of timber from the land would be an injury to the 
estate, for which the remaindermen might jnoperly make claim. 
Claim was not filed with Claims Commission, though placed in 
hands of an attorne}^ for that purpose. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Robert Waters. (H. D. 121-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court 
August 6, 1890. Court finds claimant loyal; Army supplies worth 
$558 taken. Claim appears on page 246 of index of Claims Com- 
mission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Edward O. Watkins. (W. C. Gill, administrator.) (H. D. 
231-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 6, 1899, by House 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $4,912 
were taken for Army use, no allowance being made for use and 
occupation of decedent's farm. The last finding shows decedent died 
in 1865; that claim was first presented to Congress in 18(5: that at 
the time some members of the family were not of age and Avere 
ignorant of the procedure in such cases. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty- second Congresses. 

William G. Webber. (Addie L. Bailey, sole heir.) (H. D. 
30-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court April 23, 1898. Court finds 
decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $450 taken. Appears on page 
248 of Claims Commission index. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Plouse in Sixtieth, Sixty-fii-st, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joshua White. (Mary E. White et al., heirs.) (H. D. 697-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 11, 1907. There are five claim- 
ants in this case, i. e., Mary E. White, S. W. White, Robert D. White, 
Henry K. White, and Laura B. Alexander. Their father, Joshua 
White died before the property was taken, leaving these five children 
and a' widow, Mrs. Marv White. The widow took one-third his 
estate and the five children took the other two-thirds. Xo adminis- 
tration was had till after the Civil War. From the undivided estiite 
Army supplies were taken; the two-thirds interest of these five 



200 CLAIMS L'XDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 

children therein was wurtli $r)50. These children were found loyal. 
No claim is made for the widow's one-third interest. Claim ap- 
pears on page 251 index of Claims Commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph Williams. (S. D. 29-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
May 16, 1900, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
Army supplies worth $821 were taken. Claim not filed with Claims 
Commission: was placed in hands of an attorney as early as 1864, 
however. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses, 

Miciiap:l Wine. .jr. (Samuel rj. Wine, executor.) ( H. D. 
739-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 2, 1891, Court finds 
decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $750 were taken. Claim found- 
on page 256 index of Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mount Ziox Old School Baptist Church. Near Aldie, Va. 

(S. D. 140-(;0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent court P^'hruary 28. 1905, by 
Senate res()luti<.ii. (\)nrt finds cluiiHaiit loyal: church premises used 
as barracks; rental \alue. with danu\ges in excess of ordinary wear 
and tear, $275. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-fiist and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alfred Street Baptist Church. Alexandria, Va. (S. I). 306- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building for mili- 
tary purposes ; rental with repairs incident to occupation, $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church, Alexandria, Va. (S. D. 98-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal; troops used building for hospital from May, 
1862, till close of war; rental value with incidental damages, $3,900. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses, 

St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Alexandria, Va. (S. D, 285-61- 
2,) Tucker Act. Sent court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied premises for hospital 
purposes: rental value, $2,000. No claim for damages, as Govern- 
ment repaired the building itself. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

Second Presbyterian Church, Alexandria, Va. (S. D. 218-61- 
2.) Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building for hos- 
pital purposes; rental with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, $4,300. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses, 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 201 

Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, Alex- 
andria, Va. (S. D. 97-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27. 
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occu- 
pied building from January G, 186i>, till end of war for hospital; 
rental value with incidental damages. $4,600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-Hrst and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mount Olivet Methodist Protestant Chirch, Alexandria 
County, Va. (S. D. 208-59-1.) Sent court May 6, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; from findings, read in con- 
nection with statement of the case, it appears troops used building 
for hospital and other purposes and then tore building down to get 
the timber; rental value and building amount to $3,400. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Grace Episcopal Church, Berryville, Va. (S. D. 11-61-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906. by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as quarters; rental 
value, with damages in excess of wear and tear, $650. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

ZoAR Baptist Church, Bristersburg, Va. (S. D. 291-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal: troops used building for hospital; cost of re- 
storing building to former condition Avas $700. No allowance made 
for rent. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Centerville, Va. (S. D. 
308-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso- 
lution. .Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as 
hospital and later tore out the flooring, pews, and woodwork gen- 
erally for military use. Reasonable rental value, with damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, and including articles torn out and 
used, was $650. Court reports its conclusion that claim is e(iuitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in any previous bill. 

Westover Church, Charles City County, Va. (H. D. 315-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court March 31, 1906, by House resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building about 1 month and tore 
out pews, floor, and other woodwork; rental value with repairs inci- 
dent to the use. $750. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Salem Baptist Church, Clarke County, Va. (S. D. 330-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court January 22, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops took materials from building to 
use in making winter quarters ; cost of making repairs was $600. At 
one time it was suggested that the fact that apparently there was only 
one trustee raised" a suspicion that there might be no such church at 
present and that any appropriation might benefit only the one appear- 



202 CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN 'AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 

ing as trustee. While this suggestion was only a suspicion, not based 
upon the findings, affidavits have been filed showing the church to be 
an existing organization with a pastor, and that the suspicion noted 
was wholly unfounded. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtj^-first 
and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Union Presbyterian Chltrch, Cross Keys, Va. (S. D. 323-61-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907. by Senate resolution. 

Court reports claimant loyal and that United States troops by 
proper authority occupied premises for hospital purposes, the rental 
value with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear being $100. 

This claim is identical with many others, but appears to haA^e been 
inadvertent^ overlooked in preparation of prior bills. 

Baptist Church, Culpeper, Va. (S. D. 391-59-1.) Tucker Act. 
Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; troops occupied and damaged building; rental and incidental 
damages amount to $1,750. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Fairfax Lodge No. 43, F. A. A. M.. Culpeper County, Va. (S. D. 

475-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops used building for mili- 
tary purposes: rental value with repairs necessary to restore building 
found to be $700. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South. Culpeper. Va. (S. D. 
460-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building for mili- 
tary purposes; rental with cost of repairing building afte^ its use 
was $1,850. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Culpeper, Va. (S. D. 290-62-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; troops occupied church for hospital; rental value, 
with damages incident to this use, was $760. Court reports claim is 
equitable. 

Claim certified too late for inclusi(m in previous bills. 

St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, Culpeper. Va. 
(S. D. 32-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building; 
rental value with incidental damages, $1,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

CaTAARY l*RO'raSTANT EPISCOPAL ClIURCH, Cl LPEPER CoUNTY, Va. 

(S. D. 47-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimiint loyal; troops tore down church 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 203 

building and used materials by proper authority: building worth 

$1,650. ■ . . 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cedar Grove Church, Culpeper Cofnty, Va. (S. D. 348-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal: troops tore down church and used materials to 
erect quarters : building worth $390. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty^ 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cedar Run Baptist Church, Culpeper County. Va. (S. D. 
41-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops tore down church by 
proper authority and used materials; building worth $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Chestnut Fork Old School Baptist Church, Culpeper County, 
Va. (S. D. 41^61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops by proper au- 
thority tore down church building and used materials in building 
winter quarters; building worth $1,180. As this claim is identical 
with many others repeateclly passed by both Houses, failure to include 
it in various bills must be ascribed to oversight. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church, Culpeper County, Va. 

( S. D. 45-59-1. ) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troo})s tore down church and 
used materials by proper authority; building worth $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

New Salem Baptist Church, Culpeper County, Va. (S. D. 
30-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904,' by Senate i-eso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore dowm churcli: value 
of materials taken was $1,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Culpeper Couxty. Va. (S. D. 
o7_59_i.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building, and as 
an incident destroyed the building; building worth $700. This seems 
to be a case of destruction as an incident to use and occupation. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Deep Creek, Va. (S. D. 
268-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down church by 
proper authority, and used nuiterials in erection of barracks; building 
worth $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



204 Ci..\lMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEK ACTS, ETC. 

Smiths Ghove Mktir)Dist EnsrorAL Church, Dixwiddte County, 
Va. (S. D. 151-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. Readinc; findings 
with statement of case, it appears troops removed the huildino; and 
appro])riated the materials bv proper authority. Building worth 
$600. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Calvary Episcopal Church. DixwrnniE Courthouse, Va. (S. D. 
243-50-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal; church used by troops as hospital: rental value, 
with incidental damages, $520. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Liberty Church, Dranesville,, Va. (S. D. 240-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905. by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal: troops occupied church; rental value, with 
fepairs incident to the use. was $700. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and Plouse in Sixty-first 
and Sixty- second Congresses. 

Makemie Presbyterian Church, Drummondtown, Va. (S. D. 
50-GO-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1903. by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used church as quarters: 
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, found 
to be $400. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

^Methodist P^piscopal Church. Drummondtown, Va. (S. D. 
139-00-1.) Tucker act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds chiimant loyal; troops occupied building; rental 
value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, found 
to be $300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Forest Hell Methodist Episcopal Church, Dumfries, Va. 
(S. D. 200-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen- 
ate res-olution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down building 
by proper authority and used materials; building worth $1,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Me'jhodist Episcopal Church, Falls Church, Va. (S. D. 623- 
60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal ; that troops tore down the building 
and used the materials in building chimneys and other structures in 
their cam]>s; that it was done without authority; buihling worth 
$1,600. The only question is whether payment should be made in 
view of statement that the taking was without authority. The very 
fact that the materials wei-e used by the troops for legitimae purposes 
in their camps would seem to prove that the taking was done at least 
with assent of the responsible officers. This view was evidently 



jclaims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 205 

taken in previous Congresses, as the claim passed the Senate twice 
and passed the House twice. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Union Church, Falmouth, Ya. (S. D. 31-59-1.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court April 27, 190-1, by Senate resohition. Court finds claim- 
ant loyal; troops occupied building about four months and damaged 
it; rental value (evidently including cost of repairs) found to be 
$750. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

ZiON Protestant Episcopal Church, Fairfax, Va. (S. I). 222- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building and 
finally tore it down by authority and used materials ; building w^orth 
$1,200. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, Fairfax, 
County, Va. (S. D. 334-(50-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 
1906, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occu- 
pied church as quarters; rental value, with damages in excess of or- 
dinary wear and tear, found to be $450. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty- Second Congresses. 

Jerusalem Baptist Church and Zion Protestant Episcopal 
Church, Fairfax, Va. (S. D. 335-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds both claimants 
loyal ; troops tore down house of worship and used materials : build- 
ing worth $1,500. The court goes into details as to matter of title, 
it ap])earing that the Baptist Church erected a new building on site 
of the one torn down, but that the Episcopal Church may have some 
rights in the land ; that the two organizations have entered into an 
agreement as to division of any sum appropriated in payment of the 
claim. Under these facts no objection is made to the payment being 
made. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Broad Run Baptist Church, Fauquier County, Va. (S. D. 
290-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops destroyed building 
worth $800. Examining the findings with statement of case, it ap- 
pears the materials were used by the troops in building winter quar- 

ters. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Carters Run Baptist Church, Fauquier County, Va. (S. D. 
148-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore down church 
building and used materials in erecting quarters; building worth $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



206 claims under the bowman and tucker acts; etc. 

Grove Baptist Church, Fauqiier County, Va. (S. D. 463-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. 
Court tinds claimant loyal; troojjs occupied building; rental value, 
including incidental damages, $G00. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixt}^ -second Congresses. 

Mot NT HoREB Methodist Episcopal Church South, Fauquier 
County, Va. (S. D. 85-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops 
occupied building, necessitating making repairs costing $150. No 
allowance for rent included. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Fox Hill, Va. (S. D. 
101-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops under command of 
(jren. Wool tore down building and used materials for Army use. 
Building worth $540. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixtj^-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Protestant Church, Fox Hiul, Va. (S. D. 271- 
00-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; that troops, by proper authority, 
tore down building and hauled materials away; building worth $625. 
Court says it does not appear what use was made of the materials, 
but that is immaterial, the taking being by authority. It could not 
become duty of claimant to follow the lumber away to see what was 
done with it. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church South. Frederick 
County, Va. (S. D. 291-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 
1908, by Senate resolution. Coui't reports claimant loyal ; troops, by 
proper authority, tore down churcli building and used materials in 
erecting quarters; materials worth $75. Court reports claim is 
equitable. 

Claim certified too late for inclusion in any previous bills. 

MoiNT ZioN Church of United Brethren, Frederick County, 
Va. (S. D. 126-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court April 27, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build- 
ing for inilitarv purposes: rental value, with incidental damages, 
$800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Christian Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 38-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court April 27. 1904. by Senate resolution. Court 
reports claimant loyal: trooi)s occupied building about two years; 
rental value, including (hiiuages beyond ordinary wear, $2,125. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 207 

Fredericksburg Baptist Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 
288-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent court February 28, 1005, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops "occupied building for 
military purposes; rental value, including cost of restoring build- 
ing after the use. was $3,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. * 

Fredericksburg Lodge, No. 4, A. F. and A. M. (S. D. 558-G0-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal ; troops used lodge building for hospital ; rental 
value, including incidental damages from the use, was $610. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 459-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for hospital; 
rental value, with repairs necessary to thereafter restore building to 
former condition, was $2,625, 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. George's Episcopai- Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D, 
244-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant gave no aid to Confederacy, which 
amounts, in case of a church, to a finding of loyalty. If the organi- 
zation gave no aid to Confederacy, then as an organization it was 
loyal. Troops occupied building; rental value, with incidental re- 
pairs, was $900. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Mary's Catholic Church, Fredericksburg, Va. (S. D. 314- 
59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building 
for hospital; rental, with damages beyond ordinary wear and tear, 
was $500. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Shiloh (Old Site) Baptist Church, Fredericksburg, Va. 

(S. D. 33-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops used building; 
rental value, with repairs incident to that use, was $1,500. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Primith^ Baptist Church, Front Eoyal, Va. (S. D. 126- 
62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church as hos- 
pital; rental value, with damages incident to this use. was $300. 
Court reports claim equitable. 

Findings not certified until December 6, 1911, and not considered 
in connection with previous bill. 



208 claims ukder the bowman axd tucker acts, etc. 

Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, Garrisonville, 
Ya. (S. D. 331-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 
1905, by Senate resohition. Court finds claimant lo3^al ; troops occu- 
pied buildinir: rental vabie. with repairs made necessary bv this use, 
was $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodtst Episcopal Church. Garys. Va. (S. D. 149-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resohition. 
Court finds claimant loyal; troops, by authority, tore down building 
and used materials in makinfr winter quarters; materials worth 
$1,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Conofresses. 

Abingdon Protestant Episcopal Church, Gloucester County, 
Va. (S. D. 217-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied 
churcli building" for military purposes; rental value, with damages 
beyond ordinary wear and tear, was $650. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Muhlenberg Evangelical Lutheran Church, Harrisonburg, Va. 

(S. D. 104-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building for 
hospital and other purposes; rental, with damages incident to this 
use, was $925. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, Haymarket, Va. 
(S. D. 201-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, 
by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied 
building for military purposes; rental value, with necessary repairs 
following the use, was $1,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-Second Congresses. 

FoiR Mile Creek Baptist Church, Henrico County, Va. (H. D. 
319-59-2.) Tucker Art. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal. Finding on property is to 
effect that troops took possession of building and destroyed it for 
use of Army. Reading this statement with statement of the case it 
appears that materials were hauled away. Building worth $800. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Olive Branch Christian Church, James City County, Va. 
(S. D. 460-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 29, 1908, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build- 
ing for military purposes; I'ental \!ilne, with damages beyond ordi- 
nary wear and tear, was $410. 

Passed House in Sixtv-first and Sixtv-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAX AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 209 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Jeffersonton, Va. (S D 
2i (-09^2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: troops used church' build- 
ing; rental, with damao-es beyond ordinary wear and tear, Avas $325 

lassed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

]\Iethodist Episcopal Church South, Kernstown, Va (S D 
271-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: troops, by authority, tore 
down cliurch buildino- and apjn-opriated materials therefrom : build- 
ing worth $1;600. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

^Opequon Presbyterian Church, Kernstown, Va. (S. D 
3 (-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal: troops used buildino- for 
hosi^ital, 18G2-1864; rental value, with incidental repairs, Avas $1,750- 
1 assed Senate m Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Fletcher Chapel, King George County, Va. (S. D 81-58-3 ) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 'resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal: the facts on property are reported as 
f olloAvs : 

During the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by proper 
authority, took possession of the church building of Fletcher Chapel, of King 
Ixeorge County, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for a small- 
pox hospital for a period of six months. At the termination of said occu- 
pancy the said military forces of the United States destroyed said church 
building by fire to prevent the spread of contagion. The reasonable rental 
value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the cost 
to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the military 
forces of the United States took possession thereof, was the sum of one thousand 
five hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been 
made. 

This claim is identical with that of the Catholic Church of Dal- 
ton, Ga. The destruction of the building did not arise from any 
act of warfare, but Avas evidently deemed by the military authorities 
a necessary sanitary measure to protect tlie health of the troops. 
This necessity for burning the building was the direct result of the 
use thereof for a smallpox hospital. The use itself Avas a nec&ssary 
a.nd proper one. Having been once used as a pesthouse the build- 
ing's value as a house of Avorship Avas destroyed. It Avould seem, 
therefore, that in reason the use of the building practically meant 
destruction of its value, just as wood taken for fuel is destroyed 
in its use. 

For reasons stated and also mentioned under the Catholic Church 
of Dalton the claim is included in this bill. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, King George 
County, Va. (S. D. 221-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 

19855— H. Kept. 97, 63-2 14 



210 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

27, 1904^, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops 
occupied building for military purposes; rental, with damages inci- 
dent to this use, was $800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

IVIethodist Episcopal Church, Lamberts Point, Va. (H. D. 170- 
58-H.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 3, 1903. Court finds 
claimant loyal; troops occupied building for military purposes; 
rental, with incidental damages, was $780. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Lebanon Union Church, Lincolnia, Fairfax County, Va. 
(S. D. 228-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 190.5, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops tore dowui 
building and used materials to build winter quarters; building 
worth $850. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, LoYETTsyiLLE, Ya. (S. D. 273-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal : Army occupied building three months for 
hospital; rental yalue, with damages beyond ordinary wear and tear, 
was $425. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Chl^rch, McDowell, Highland County, Va. 
(S. D. 170-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; Army used building as 
hospital about four weeks; the damages incident to this use amounted 
to $150. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Marshall, Va. (S. D. 
22G-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loj^al; Army used building for militar}^ 
purposes; rental yalue, with cost of making repairs made necessary 
by the use, was $G00. 

" Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church or Marshall, Va. (S. D. 282-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; Army used building for military pur- 
poses; rental yalue, with cost of restoring building to former condi- 
tion, was $300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Massaponax Baptist Church, Virginia. (S. D. 312-59-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court June 13, 190G, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal ; Army used building as hospital ; rental, with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $195. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 211 

,,-^™?'^'^'L^'^r^^"*^^-^i^ Church South, Middleburg, Va. (S D 
12^-62-2 ) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2. 1907, by Senate i^^so- 
hition Conrt finds clannant loyal; Army used building for hospital 
and other purposes; rental value, including damages in excess of 
ordmary wear and tear, was $195. Court further reports its con- 
clusion under terms of act of June 25, 1910 (3G Stat., 837, 838), that 
claim — ' ■ 

is equitable only in the sense tliat tlie Army of tbe United Stntes roceived the 
beneht of the nse and occupation of the buildin;; and danmj;ed the same to the 
value of the amount found, as set forth. 

This conclusion shows that, as a matter of fact, the court allowed 
a sum only sufficient to repair the building. 
Passed House in Sixty-second Congres's. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Middletowx, Va (S D 
220-59-1 ) Tueker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court hnds claimant loyal; troops used building as hospital 
«nd as commissary depot : rental, with damages incident to this use, 
u'as $851. " ' 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtv-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Mount Zion Methodist Episcopal Church, Colored, Middle- 
town, Va. (S. D. 280-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 
1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops took 
possession of church building, by proper authoTity. removed flooring 
and furniture, and damaged building so it was' practically a total 
loss; building with furnishings worth $300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Thomas Episcopal Church, Middletowx, Va. (S. D. 
124-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, bv Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; Army took possession of 
building, by authority, and used it about three years for various 
purposes; rental, with damages incident to use, was"^$f)00. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth^and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Grove Presbyterlan Church, Morrisville, Va. (S. D. 43-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; that troops, by proper authority, occu- 
pied building for indefinite period, and later tore down part of build- 
ing and used material for fuel; value of material taken by troops 
is found to be $1,100. No allowance made for rent. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixt^^-second Congresses, 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Morrisville. Va. (S. D. 
19-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops under authority tore 
down the church building, and appropriated materials to Army use ; 
building worth $750. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



212 . CLMMS UK-DER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

Episcopal Church South, Mount Craavford, Va. (S. D. 
413-G1-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops, by authority, took 
possession of church building and tore clown part of it, and used 
materials for fuel; value of part so used was $375. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Liberty Baptist Church, Xew Kent County, Va. (H. D. 
1273-00-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1906, by House 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops by proper authority 
took possession of church building, tore up floor and sleepers with 
which to build a bridge, also destroying or taking the windows, doors, 
blinds, and pews all reasonably with $200. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Roper Church, New Kent County^, Va. (S. D. 35-61-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for military purposes; 
rental value, with damages bej^ond ordinary wear and tear. $250. " 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- j 
second Congresses. 

Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, Norfolk County, Va. 
(S. D. 21-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Co'urt finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build- 
ing for military purposes and cut timber from premises; rental, in- 
cluding repairs necessary to restore building to former condition, 
$1,290. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

DoAVNiNG Methodist Episcopal Church South, Oak Hill, Va. 
(S. D. 265-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church 
building and damaged same ; rental, with damages in excess of ordi- 
nary wear and tear, $235. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. J 

New Hope Baptist Church, Orange County, Va. (S. D. 

364-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as 
hospital ; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinarv wear and 
tear, $150. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixtj-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Paris, Va. (S. D. 289-60- 
1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building as hospital ; 
rental, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $200. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 213 

Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, Prince George 
County, Va. (S. D. 29-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 2T, 
1901, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occu- 
pied buildings from October 1, 1861, till close of war; rental value, 
including- the repairs necessary to restore buildings to former condi- 
tion, was $1,150. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Pungoteague, Va. (S. D. 
621-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building 
as quarters; rental value, wnth damage in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, $780. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

St. George Episcopal Church, Pungoteague, Ya. (S. D. 173- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 31, 1903, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building 
and removed interior fittings and walls and used material ; reasonable 
rental value and damages incident thereto, $2,800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Old School Baptist Church and REGUL.iR Baptist Church. 
(Known as Thorntons Gap Baptist Church.) (S. D. 51-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds Thorntons Gap Baptist Church was loyal. To arrive at 
the facts it is necessary to examine findings in connection with state- 
ment of case, and it is thereby seen that the church building was 
practically torn down in order to remove material, the damages 
amounting to $1,155. It would appear that the two present church 
claimants are successors in interest of the Thorntons Gap Baptist 
Church in existence during war; that about 1890 a division occurred 
in the church; and that the present organizations jointly own this 
claim. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Oak Grove Methodist Episcopal Church, Eeams Station, Va. 
(S. D. 23-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied 
church building as hospital. Eental value, with rei)airs rendered 
necessary by this use. $800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Rectortown, Va. (S. D. 
363-60-1.) Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court 
finds claimant loyal ; troops, by authority, tore down church building 
and used material in constructing quarters; building worth $1,300. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



214 . claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 

St. Luke's Episcopal Church, Remington, Va. (S. D. 529-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1901. by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; trocips by proper authority used and 
damaofcd church buildino; and i)arsonao;e and took lunil)er intended 
for buildino- a new church; all of the value of $()50. It appears that 
the church buildinir and parsona<>e were later (lestroyed by fire, but 
it is left in doubt whether that was .occasioned by Confederates or 
Federals, so no payment can be made on that account. The only sum 
recommended to be paid is the $650 mentioned. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Paul's Free Church, Routts Hills, A^a. (S. D. 119-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building for 
military jnu-poses; rental value. Avith damages other than ordinary 
wear and tear. $()00. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Stephen's Litheran Church, Shenandoah County, Va. 
(S. D. 607-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops took posses- 
sion of church building then in course of construction and used 
materials therefrom in construction of a signal tower ; building being 
worth $575. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

AViLDERNESS Baptist Church, Spotsylvania County, Va. (S. D. 
227-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church build- 
ing as hospital. By such occupancy repairs were made necessary to 
restore building to former condition, costing $800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Andreav Chapel, Stafford County, Ya. (S. D. 82-58-3.) Sent 
to court April 27. 1901. by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; troops removed the church building, appropriating material 
to Army use ; building worth $2,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and Hou'-e in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, Stafford County, Va. 
(S. D. 13-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904. by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building; 
rental value, with repairs incident to this use, $1,500. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Berea Baptist Church, Stafford County, Va. (S. D. 26-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church building; such 
use and occupation and incidental damage amomited to $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



claims under the bowman and tucker acts, etc. 215 

Hartwood Presbyterian Church, Stafford County, Va. (S. D. 
239-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building for 
military purposes; rental value, with repairs incident to this use. 
was $800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congi-esses. 

Macedonia Methodist Episcopal Church, Stafford County, Va. 
(S. D. 316-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied 
church property from fall or winter of 1862 till following spring 
for military purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordi- 
nary wear and tear, was $310. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Stephens City, Va. (S. D. 
305-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February. 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal : that troops occupied church 
building as hospital three or four months; rental value, wnth dam- 
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was $500. Later church 
building and parsonage were burned, but the circumstances of the 
burning are not shown, so no pa3mient can be made on that account. 
The proposed appropriation is restricted to the item of $500, rent 
and damages. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Trinity Lutheran Church, Stephens City, Va. (S. D. 274- 
59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February, 1905, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal : troops occupied church building 
for military purposes; rental, with repairs incident to occupation, 
was $500. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Strasburg, Va. (S. D. 329-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loval; troops occupied church building for hospital pur- 
poses; rental value, with repairs incident to this occupation, was 
$730. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

First Baptist Church, Suffolk, Va. (S. D. 416-60-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loval : troops occupied church building as hospital and bar- 
Tacks; rental value, with damages incident to occupation, $550^ 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South. Suffolk, Va. (S. D. 273- 
59-1 ) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905. by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied for military 



216 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMA^ST AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

« 

purposes two church buildings belonging to claimant; rental value, 
with repairs incident to this use. was $2,100. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Pkovidexce Methodist Episcopal Church, near Suffolk, Va. 
(S. D. 176-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church 
building as quarters; rental, with damages incident to this use, was 
$800. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Plains Episcopal Church, The Plains, Va. (S. D. 508-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28. 1905, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building as gen- 
eral (|uarters; rental, with damages incident to this use, was $550. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Lutheran Church of Toms Brook and Reformed Church or 
Toms Brook. (Successors to Union Church of Toms Brook, Va.) 
(S. D. 272-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906. by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; during war these 
claimants owned a house of worship in common, commonly called 
the Union Church; troops occupied building for military purposes; 
rental, with incidental damages, was $250. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Unison, Va. (S. D. 356- 
60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building as 
hospital : rental, with damages incident to occupation, was $150. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal CnuRfH South, Upperville, Va. (S, D. 
288-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for 
military purposes; rental, with damages incident to use, was $210. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth. Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Old-School Baptist Church, Upperville, Va. (S. D. 34—61-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as hospital and 
for other purposes; rental, with damages incident to use, was $250. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church Soi^th, AVarrenton, Va. (S. D. 
147_59_1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28, 1905, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building for 
military purposes; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore 
building, was $1,190. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 217 

Presbyterian Church. Warrenton, Va. (S. D. 474-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied building for military pur- 
poses; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore building, was 
$890. 

Pas.sed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church, Waterford, Va. (S. D. 276-59-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; troops occupied building as hospital; rental, with 
damages incident to use, was $525. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Primitive Baptist Church, Waterlick, Va. (S. D. 134-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church for military 
purposes; rental value, with damages incident to this use, is $100. 
Court reports claim equitable. 

Findings certified December 6, 1911, and not considered in connec- 
tion with previous bill. 

Baptist Church, "Williamsburg, Va. (S. D. 148-59-1.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
claimant loyal; troops occupied building for military purposes; 
rental, with repairs incident to this use, Avas $1,540. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty -first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, "Williamsburg, Va. (S. D. 
38-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as hos- 
pital for three years; rental, with damages incident to use, was $1,300. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, Winchester, Va. (S. D. 
219-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building as 
hospital; rental, with damages incident to use, was $810. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixt}^- 
second Congresses. 

John Mann Methodist Episcopal Church (Colored), "Win- 
chester, Va. (S. D. 442-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court Feb- 
ruary 28, 1905, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
troops occupied church building; rental, with damages incident to 
use, Avas $600. This church presented a claim to Quartermaster Gen- 
eral in 1866 for repairs, but claim was rejected for want of juris- 
diction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Kent Street Presbyterian Church, "Winchester. Va. (S. D. 
47_00-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906. liy Senate reso- 



218 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

lution. Court finds claimaiit loyal; troops oceni)ied building as hos- 
pital; rental, with damages incident to use. Avas $'2,750. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Loudoun Street Presbyterian Church, Winchester, Va. (S. D. 

328-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13. lOOC. by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; trooj^s occupied building as 
hospital about two years and removed furniture. Rental value, with 
damages incident to use, was $2,()00. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Market Street IMethodist Episcopal Church, Winchester, Va. 
(S. D. 424-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 28. 1905. by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal ; troops occupied build- 
ing for military purposes; rental, with repairs incident to this use. 
was $1,740. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Paul Reformed Church, Woodstock. Va. (S. D. 258-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied building; rental, with 
damages to building and fencing, was $325. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

WASHINCxTON. 

Joseph Hinson. (H. D. 284-GO-l.) Bownuin Act. Officer's 
claim for difference in pay, $115.41. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

WEST VIRGINIA. 

William H. Bodkin. (Sarah A. Bodkin, widow.) (H. D. 47- 
02-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 12, 1910. Court finds 
decedent loyal ; that decedent rendered services as blacksmith to Fed- 
eral Army, aggregating in value $278.50. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress, 

Mary E. Buckey. (S. D. 407-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
July 17, 1897, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
that Army supplies worth $115 were taken. It would appear that 
this woman nursed sick and wounded Federal soldiers and furnished 
them food, but the court makes no allowance for this service nor for 
the meals, on the ground that they were voluntarily given. This 
claimant Avould appear to be entitled to everv possible consideration. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixty-second Congresses. 

John Cook. (Charles Cook, administrator.) (H. D. 204-60-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court January 7, 1907. Court finds decedent 
loyal; that Armv sujijilies worth $550 were taken.' Claim presented 
to Commissary (ieneral. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 219 

William Corrick. (Lorenzo D. Corrick, adniinistriitor.) (S. D. 
33-61-1.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court March 27. 1000, 
under Bowman Act, and decedent found loyal under that reference, 
but claim later dismissed; afterwards sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution, under Tucker Act, and has been tried under that 
reference. Court finds decedent loyal; that his dwelliufr was used 
as a hos])ital and that his team was em])loyed to liaul w()unded sol- 
diers; that rails were taken and used; all of the worth of ^loO. No 
allowance is made for destruction of property as a military neces- 
sity. Claim filed with Quartermaster General in ISOo. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

George W. Craig. (Edward M. Craig, administrator.) (S. D. 
183-58-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court February 1, 1901, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $2,11-1 
taken, exclusive of item of hay, for which claimant received pay. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

Jacob Crouch. (Andrew Crouch et al., administrators.) (H. D. 
311-58-3.) Bowman Act. Sent to court February 8, 1887. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies Avorth $3,710 taken. Claim tried 
under Bowman Act, so it must have been previously presented to 
Quartermaster General and Commissary General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Estates of John Sharp, deceased, and George Dickson, deceased. 
(John T. Sharp, administrator.) (S. D. 155-60-1.) Tucker Act. 
Claim first sent to court in 1892, under Bowman Act, and decedent 
found loyal under that reference; on March 2, 1907. sent to court 
under Tucker Act by Senate resolution. Court finds both decedents 
loyal. 

This case seems to involve tAvo separate claims, as the court finds 
that Army supplies worth $310 were taken from John Sharp, one of 
the decedents; and that Army supplies worth $99 were taken from 
George Dickson, the other decedent. Claim presented to Quarter- 
master General, who rejected it in 1878. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses as two 
separate claims. 

Samuel Fitz. (John Fitz, executor.) (S. D. 298-61-2.) Tucker 
Act. Sent to court March 3, 1909, by Senate resolution. Court finds 
decedent loyal. On property the material fact reported is that Fed- 
eral forces occupied decedent's foundry for about one year; that 
rental value was $1,200. This claim could not have been successfully 
prosecuted before Claims Commission, being for occupation of real 
estate. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Jacob J. Fore:man. (Mary Foreman, widow.) (H. D. 321-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court February 18. 1910, by House resoluticm. 
Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $81(') taken. Court 
reports its conclusion that claim is an equitable one. 

Passed House in Sixty-second Congress. 



220 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

George Fout. (John H. Font, administrator.) (H. D. 3G-61-1.) 
Bowman Act. Sent to court August 2(3, 1888. Court finds decedent 
loyal; Army supj^lies worth $780 taken. Tried under Bowman Act, 
so must have been previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Lydia a. Hockensmith. (Marv V. Chambers, administratrix.) 
(S. D. 620-60-2.) Tucker Act. Claim first sent to court March 11, 
1902, under Bowman Act. l)ut dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 
May 22. 1908. sent to court by Senate resolution, under Tucker Act. 
Court finds decedent loyal : that United States troops occupied de- 
cedent's dwelling for hospital purposes; rental value, with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, Avas $395. Claim presented to 
Quartermaster General and rejected for want of jurisdiction; later 
presented to the Treasury Department and disallowed in 1880 for 
lack of jurisdiction; sent to court first under Bowman Act and later 
under Tucker Act. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Jacob W. Hudson. (T: J. Hudson, administrator.) (H. D. 
297-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 27, 1906, by House reso- 
lution. Court finds decedent loyal; hay worth $15 taken from dece- 
dent. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Estates or John McH. Kelly and Allie V. Kelly. (L. H. Kelly, 
administrator.) (H. D. 1198-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
February 6, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds two decedents 
loyal. On property the case seems to involve two separate claims. 

United States forces occupied dwelling of John McH. Kelly and 
took lumber from the premises for building bunks, etc. Kental 
value, including damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, and 
value of lumber taken aggregate $485, due the estate of John McH. 
Kelly. 

From the other decedent, Allie V. Kelly, a buggy worth $50 was 
taken, evidently by proper authority, to be used as an ambulance. 
An official receipt was given for the buggy. Under these conditions 
it is believed the buggy should be paid for. 

Claims first presented as early as Fiftieth Congress, or about 25 
years ago. As the claims of two separate estates are involved, ap- 
propriation should be made as follows: 

To L. H. Kelly, administrator of estate of .John McH. Kelly, deceased, of 
Braxton Connty, .$485. and to L. H. Kelly, iidniinistrator of estate of Allie V. 
Kelly, deceased, of Braxton County, $50. 

Passed House in Sixtj^-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph Loudermilk. (H. D. 1146-60-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court January 23, 1906, by House resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; Army supplies worth $530 taken. Claim covering some items 
filed with Southern Claims Commission, but too late. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Cathemne S. Lucas. (James S. Lucas, administrator.) (H. D. 
229-61-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to court June 4, 1896. Court finds 
decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $710 taken. Claim rejected 
by Quartermaster General. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDEE THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS^ ETC. 221 

Oliver Milbourn. (Ruth Milbonrn. Louise V. Milboiirn, and 
Henry W. Milbonrn, sole heirs.) (S. D. 340-60-1.) Tucker Act. 
Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds dece- 
dent loyal ; Army supplies worth $430 taken. Presented to Quarter- 
master General, and rejected. First sent to court under Bowman 
Act in 1902. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Sarah Miller. (S. D. 459-61-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court 
May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; 
Army supplies worth $620 taken; not presented to Claims Commis- 
sion; claimant testifies to ignorance of that commission. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

James W. Myers. (William W. Myers, executor.) (H. D. 
304-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 23, 1892. Court 
reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $650 taken. Careful 
'examination of statement of case would indicate that claim had been 
previously tried and that the Government had made a motion for 
new trial, which motion was allowed, and that on the new trial the 
sum above mentioned was allowed. Claim was filed with Southern 
Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Alfred O'Bannon. (Henry O'Bannon and William A. O'Ban- 
non, heirs.) (H. D. 31-59-1.) Bowman Act. Sent to court March 
2, 1887. Court reports decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $304 
taken. Claim tried under Bowman Act. so must have been previously 
presented; is found on printed index of claims presented to Quarter- 
master General. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

F. A. EoEDER. (J. W. Gardner, administrator.) (S. D. 122-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3. 1905. by Senate resolution. 
Court reports decedent loyal; United States forces occupied certain 
buildings belonging to decedent at Harpers Ferry ; rental value dur- 
ing occupancy, with necessary repairs, Avas $320. Claim could not 
have been collected before Claims Commission. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second CongTesses. 

John Sharp. (John T. Sharp, administrator.) (S. D. 455-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. This is the same claim previously considered under the 
title of George Dickson, John T. Sharp, administrator. As men- 
tioned under that other case the findings really cover two separate 
and distinct claims. The decedent, John Shai-p, is found loyal, and 
it is reported that Army supplies worth $340 were taken from him; 
that claim was presented to Quartermaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Maria Shirley. (H. L. Briscoe, sole heir.) (H. D. 209-59-1.) 
Sent to court Januaiy 13, 1903. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army 



222 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKEE ACTS, ETC. 

« 

supplies worth $260 taken. Claim tried under Bowman Act, which 
shows previous j^resentation. 

Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixtyrfirst, and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Joseph C. Smith. (H. D. 408-59-2.) Bowman Act. Sent to 
court March 18, 1900. Court finds decedent loyal; Army supplies 
worth $r)20 taken; claim tried under Bowman Act, which means it 
must have been previously presented. 

Passed House in Sixtieth, Sixty-fii-st, and Sixtj^-second Congresses. 

Archeles Stanley. ("Wilbur H. Thomas, administrator.) (S. D. 
170-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 21. 1910, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court finds decedent loyal ; Army supplies worth $130 taken. 
Court concludes that claim is equitable. 

Findings certified too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

James M. Stephenson. (S. D. 91-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court April 26, 1904, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; corn worth $244 taken for Army use. Claimant states he did 
not know any method of obtaining compensation. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Beverley Tompkins. (W. X. Tallev. administrator.) (H. D. 
567-62-2.) BoAvman Act. Sent to court February 8, 1895. Court 
finds decedent loyal; Army supplies worth $1,645 taken; claim 
presented to Quartermaster General and Commissary General. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

David Tuckwiller and Sarah Bettie AVilson. (S. D. 621-60-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resoluticm. This 
claim is somewhat peculiar. It appears that David Tuckwiller, 
owner of an estate, died before any property in question was taken. 
The estate was in possession of Sanniel Tuckwiller, as executor. 
Under the will of David Tuckwiller. deceased, David Tuckwiller, jr., 
and Sarah Bettie Wilson were to take between them a one-fourth 
interest. 

The property was taken before the estate was divided and the 
reasonable value of the one-fourth interest of these two claimants 
in that property was $600. 

The court finds that these two claimants were loyal by reason of 
tender years. 

Claim was first presented to the Commissary General in 1873 by 
said Samuel Tuckwiller, the executor; it was rejected and in 1887 
w^as sent to court under Bowman Act in the name of said executor; 
that executor was found not loyal and his petition for that reas(m 
was dismissed, without regard to the interests of these two bene- 
ficiaries. In considering these claims it has always been the intention 
of Congress to compensate the persons upon whom the losses actu- 
ally fell. While the executor of this estate may be deemed to have 
been vested with the legal title to the property the title of an execu- 
tor is necessarily in trust for the beneficiaries of the estate or will. 
Therefore, on the face of these facts, the loss as to their undivided 
interest in the supplies taken fell upon these tAvo ]:)resent claimants, 
who were evidently small children during the war. The disloyalty 
of the executor should not prevent infant beneficiaries from receiving 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 223 

compensation for supplies taken. They could not have been responsi- 
ble for the loyalty or disloyalty of the executor; they evidently did 
not appoint him, and. being minors, could not control him or his 
actions. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-lirst and Sixty- 
second Congresses, 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Barboi:ksville, W, Va, 
(S. D. :39-()0-l.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Coui-t finds claimant loyal ; United States forces oc- 
cupied church property as winter quarters; rental value, with dam- 
ages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was. $500. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Beverly, W. Va. (S. D. 1-t 1-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to couit April 27. 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied church 
building for military purposes from 1861 to 1863; rental value, in- 
cluding necessary repairs to restore building to former condition, 
was $f,500. 

Passed Senate m Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Bunker Hill, AY. Va. (S. D. 
30-1-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occii- 
l)ied church property at various times from July 15, 1861, to April 
1, 1865; rental value, including repairs necessary to restore build- 
ing to former condition, Avas $1,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixt^'-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Bunker Hill, AV. Va. (S. D. 189-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court May 22, 1908, by Senate resolution. The 
finding in this case is printed as Presbyterian Church, Biinkerville, 
but the body of the findings sIioaas the proper name to be Bunker 
Hill. 

Court reports claimant loyal ; troops occupied church property for 
hospital purposes; value, with damages incident to this use, was 
$790. Court concludes claim is equitable. 

Findings certified too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Free Church of Burlington, AV. Va. (H. D. 178-58-3.) Bow- 
man Act. Sent to court March 17, 1904. Court finds claimant loyal; 
United States forces occupied church building for hospital purposes; 
according to allegations of petition the occupation lasted about three 
and a half years; rental value, including necessary repairs incident 
to the occupation, was $895. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Charlestown, AA^. A"a, 

(S. D. 293-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 190-1:. by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces 
occupied church building about three months; rental value, with 



224 CLAIMS UXDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, reported at $600. In 
1874 claim for cost of repairs was filed with Quartermaster General, 
and rejected for lack of appropriation or jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Johns Episcopal Church, Charleston. W. Va. (S. D. 
826-50-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 18. 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occu- 
pied church building as barracks and as quartermaster supply depot 
from July, 1861, till spring of 1865, removing pews, pulpit, etc. ; 
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, re- 
ported at $1,850. A claim for $1,021. representing merely the cost of 
rei^lacing pews, repairing organ, etc., was presented to Quartermaster 
General in 1880, and disallowed for want of jurisdiction. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

ZiON Protestant Episcopal Church, Charlestown, W. Va. 
(S. D. 315-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Sen- 
ate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces oc- 
cupied building for hospital purposes; rental value, with damages 
incident to occupation in excess of ordinary wear and tear, reported 
at $540. According to petition, the occupation lasted from fall of 
1863 till end of war. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Clarksburg, W. Va. (S.D^ 
17-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied 
church building for hospital and other purposes from spring of 1862 
till close of war; rental value, with damages incident to occupation, 
found to be $1,400. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Clarksburg, W. Va. (S. D, 252-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces occupied church 
building at different times for quarters; rental value, with damages 
in excess of ordinary wear and tear, found to be $525. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, Ditffields, W. Va. (S. D. 
48-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu- 
pied building as quarters and hospital; rental value, including repairs 
necessary to restore building to former condition. $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church of Fayette County. W. Va. (S. D. 44-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied church 



CLAIMS UNDEK THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 225 

building for hospital, and later tore it down and used material in 
erection of winter (luarters : building worth $475. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixtj'-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Chirch. Flatwoods, W. Va. (S. D. (579- 
GO-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 190G, by Senate resolu- 
tion. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces occupied 
church building for hospital and general quarters; rental value, 
including damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $390. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbxterlv^' Chi Rf h, French Creek, W. Va. (S. D. 133-59-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court finds claimant loyal: United States forces occupied church 
building, and during ()ccui)ati()n as barracks the building was acci- 
dentally l)urned: building worth $1,100. Applying the same rule 
followed in similar cases where a building Avas destroyed practically 
as an incident to its occupation for Army purposes, this claim has 
been included in this bill, as it Avas included in the previous bill. 
The destructic n was not an act of warfare, but evidently resulted 
from occupation of the building for Army quarters. 

Passed Senate and House in Sixty-second Congress. 

Methodist Episcopal CuiRtH South, Glenville, W. Va. (S. D. 
131-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate reso- 
lution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States forces used the 
church building as a military storehouse, and while so occupying it 
the building was burned and destroyed, the evidence not showing the 
cause of the fire ; building Avorth $800. Under same rule applied in 
some similar cases, it Avould aj^pear that it should be considered that 
the destruction of the building arose from its occupation for mili- 
tary purposes, and for that reason the claim is included in this bill. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-second Congress. 

Fettermax (now West !Maix Street) Methodist Episcopal 
Church, Grafton, AV. Va. (S. D. 188-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent 
to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal ; United States forces occupied premises for hospital and other 
purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, $490. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Great Cacapon, W. Va. 
(S. D. 328-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United States forces 
tore down church building and used material in constructing stables; 
building worth $530. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, Harpers Ferry, 

W. Va. (S. D. 49-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 

19855—11. Kept. 97, G.3-2 35 



226 CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 

1904, by Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United 
States forces occupied church building; rental value, with cost of 
repairs incident to its use, found to be $1,700. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Hutionsville, W. Va. (S. D. 15-58-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports no evidence offered on the subject of loyalty. In most 
instances this might be considered a fatal defect in the proof, but as 
this claim comes from West Virginia, which should be considered a 
loyal State, it is believed that this omission should not preclude 
payment. On property court reports that United States forces tore 
down the church building and used materials therefrom, which 
materials were Avorth $791. 

The judgment of the present committee is the same as that of 
previous committees in this case. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, Martinsburg, W. Va. 

(S. D. 365-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claiuiant loyal; United States 
forces occupied church building as hospital and barracks about three 
years; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary wear and 
tear, found to be $1,340. A claim for these damages was presented to 
Treasury Department and disallowed in 1880 for lack of jurisdiction. 
Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Protestant Church, Midulewav, AV. Va. (S. I). 
<25_59_1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27. 1904. by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; United State'^ forces occu- 
pied church building as hospital, quarters, and for other purposes; 
rental value, including incidental repairs, $825. 

I'assed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Moorefieu), W. Va. (S. D. 46-59-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied church 
building for military purposes from September, 1862. till about the 
close of war; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore building, 
$1,430. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Paw Paw, W. Va. (S. D. 

373-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States troops tore 
down church building and used uiaterial in erecting shanties for 
troops; previously had used building for a brief period; value of 
building, including any prior use, $400. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixtv-second Congresses. 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 227 

Presbyterian Church, Petersburg, W. Va. (S. D. 100-58-3.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 3, 1903, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occupied and tore 
down church building, worth $2,000. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and Sixty-second and House 
in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Philippi, W. Va. (S. D. 

250-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, bv Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces occu- 
pied church building as hospital. In 1865 church was paid $498.50 
in full for damages sustained by church building and the parsonage; 
the rental value of church property during occupancy was $600, 
which is all that it is proposed to pay. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Mount Olive Primitive Baptist Church. Philippi, W. Va. 
(S. D. 381-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907. by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces 
occupied church building as quarters; rental value, with damages in 
excess of ordinary wear and tear, $250. Claim for damages was filed 
before 1877 and was disallowed by Quartennaster General. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Point Pleasant, W. Va. 

(S. D. 178-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces 
used church building for hospital and as barracks. Rental value, 
Avith damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, $1,090. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

County Court of Randolph County, W. Va. (S. D. 142-62-2.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports that Randolph County, W. Va., was one of original 
counties comprising that State admitted into the Union June 20, 
1863, and was loyal. United States troops, by authority, occupied 
county buildings from latter part of 1861 or very early in 1862 until 
early part of 1865 ; rental value of these buildings, with damages inci- 
dent to use, was $2,000. It is this sum which it is now proposed to 
appropriate to the county. 

Another item of the claim is for a certain biidge belonging to the 
county which was destroyed as an act of warfare in active prosecution 
of the war. The bridge was worth $2,000. The committee does not 
propose payment for the bridge. 

The county made claim with the War Department in 1866 for com- 
pensation of the buildings occupied and damaged, that claim being 
for $2,500. 

The court concludes that the claim for rent and damages is an 
equitable one, but as to the bridge destroyed it is neither legal nor 
equitable. . . , . , ^ I 

Findings were certified too late for inclusion in previous bill. 



228 claims under the bowmax and tucker acts, etc. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Ravenswood, W, Va. (S. 
D. 561-62-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court March 2, lOOT, by Senate 
resolution. Court finds claimant loyal; troops occupied church as 
barracks; rental value, with damages incident to this use, was $250. 
This claim Avas presented as early as 1867 and again in 1004. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, St. Albans, W. Va. (S. D. 

134-59-2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; church building occupied 
for military purposes; rental value, with repairs necessary to restore 
building to former condition, $1,400. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, St. Albans, W. Va. 

(S. D. 139-58-3.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal ; United States forces 
occupied church buildings for military purposes about three years; 
rental value, including damages incident to occupation, $2,400. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses, 

Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order or Odd Fellows, 
Shepherdstoavn, W. Va. (S. D. 294-60-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to 
court March 2, 1907, by Senate resolution. Court finds claimant 
loyal; United States forces occupied lodge room as a guardhouse; 
rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary Avear and tear, $115. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first and Sixty- 
second Congresses. 

Presbyterian Church, Springfield, W. Va. (S. D. 236-60-1.) 
Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal ; troops occupied church building for 
hospital and other purposes ; rental value, with damages in excess of 
ordinary w^ear and tear, $600. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

St. John's Catholic Church, Summersville, W. Va. (S. D. 
241-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by Senate 
resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church 
building about two years; rental value, including repairs necessary 
to restore building to former condition, $1,050. 

Passed Senate m Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixty-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Methodist Episcopal Church South, Summit Point, W. Va. 
(S. D. 18-59-1.) Tucker Act. Sent to court April 27, 1904, by 
Senate resolution. Court reports claimant loyal; United States 
forces tore down brick church building and used material for build- 
ing winter quarters ; building worth $2,500. 

Passed Senate in Sixty-first and Sixty-second and House in Sixty- 
first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Baptist Church, Sutton, W. Va. (S. D. 354-62-2.) Sent to 
court under provisions of section 151 of Judicial Code by Senate reso- 



I 



CLAIMS UNDER THE BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS, ETC. 229 

lution February 14, 1912. Claim had previously been referred bv 
House resolution under Tucker Act. 

Court reports claimant loyal; troops, bv proper authority, occu- 
pied church building three months and then tore it down and used 
materials in building picket houses, etc. ; rental value, with value of 
materials taken, was $77r.. Court concludes that claim is equitable. 

Case tried too late for inclusion in previous bill. 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Webster, W. Va. (S. D. 271-59-- 
2.) Tucker Act. Sent to court June 13, 1906, by Senate resolution. 
Court reports claimant loyal; troops occupied church building for 
military purposes; rental value, with damages in excess of ordinary 
wear and tear, $450. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Sixty-first and House in Sixtv-first 
and Sixty-second Congresses. 

WISCONSIX. 

Irving V. Bliss. (H. D. 251-ri0-l. ) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $334. -ii'. 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and Hou^e in Sixty-first and Sixty-sec- 
ond CongTesses. 

Ole Jacobsox. (H. D. 574-CO-l.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $138.78. 

Passed House in Sixty-first and Sixty-second Congresses. 

Hiram F. Lyke. (H. D. 407-59-2.) Bowman Act. Officer's claim 
for difference in pay, $188.5(). 

Passed Senate in Sixtieth and House in Sixtieth, Sixty-first, and 
Sixty-second Congi'esses. 

COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. 

1. On page 15. after line 4, insert: 

To Mary A. (iainnion, O. P.. Wliatley, and D. A. Whitehead, sole survivins: 
heirs of Wilson O. B. Whatley. deceased, late of Pope County. .$1,011). 

2. On page '2'2. after line 8. insert : 

To Lucy ('. Lee. adiuinistr.itrix of the estate i>f .Tane T. Lee. deeeasefl. of 
Mason County. .$01."). 

3. On page 24, after line 15, insert : 

To the vestry of Christ Protestant Episcopal Chunh, of Bowling (Jreen, .$.30(L 

4. On page 28, after line 7, insert : 

To the heirs or succession of Selzer Bass, decea.sed. late of West Carroll Pai'- 
ish, $.3,407. .50. representing: his Interest in property taken from him and his co- 
owners. 

5. On i^age 54, after line 13. insert : 

To the deacons of the Fir.st Presbyterian Chunh of Newbern. .$;),oOO. 

6. On page 56, after line 13, insert : 

To the consistory of the Trinity German Reformed Church, of Cettysburt;. .$70. 

7. On page 78, after line 20, insert : 

To the trustees of Union Presbyterian Church, of Cross Keys. .$100. 

o 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



iiiii Hill Hill Hill mil nil mil 

001 019 871 9 



